Loading...
Agenda 06/04/2007 GMPAGENDA June 4, 2007 9:00 a.m. 2005 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments Transmittal Hearing James Coletta, BCC Chairman, District 5 Tom Henning, BCC Vice - Chairman, District 3 Donna Fiala, BCC Commissioner, District 1 Frank Halas, BCC Commissioner District 2 Fred W. Coyle, BCC Commissioner, District 4 NOTICE: ALL PERSONS WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY AGENDA ITEM MUST REGISTER PRIOR TO SPEAKING. SPEAKERS MUST REGISTER WITH THE COUNTY MANAGER PRIOR TO THE PRESENTATION OF THE AGENDA ITEM TO BE ADDRESSED. COLLIER COUNTY ORDINANCE NO. 2003 -53, AS AMENDED, REQUIRES THAT ALL LOBBYISTS SHALL, BEFORE ENGAGING IN ANY LOBBYING ACTIVITIES (INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, ADDRESSING THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS), REGISTER WITH THE CLERK TO THE BOARD AT THE BOARD MINUTES AND RECORDS DEPARTMENT. REQUESTS TO ADDRESS THE BOARD ON SUBJECTS WHICH ARE NOT ON THIS AGENDA MUST BE SUBMITTED IN WRITING WITH EXPLANATION TO THE COUNTY MANAGER AT LEAST 13 DAYS PRIOR TO THE DATE OF THE MEETING AND WILL BE HEARD UNDER "PUBLIC PETITIONS." ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THIS BOARD WILL NEED A RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS PERTAINING THERETO, AND THEREFORE MAY NEED TO ENSURE THAT A VERBATIM RECORD OF THE PROCEEDINGS IS MADE, WHICH RECORD INCLUDES THE TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE UPON WHICH THE APPEAL IS TO BE BASED. ALL REGISTERED PUBLIC SPEAKERS WILL RECEIVE UP TO FIVE (5) MINUTES UNLESS THE TIME IS ADJUSTED BY THE CHAIRMAN. IF YOU ARE A PERSON WITH A DISABILITY WHO NEEDS ANY ACCOMMODATION IN ORDER TO PARTICIPATE IN THIS PROCEEDING, YOU ARE ENTITLED, AT NO COST TO YOU, TO THE PROVISION OF CERTAIN ASSISTANCE. PLEASE CONTACT THE COLLIER COUNTY FACILITIES MANAGEMENT DEPARTMENT LOCATED AT 3301 EAST TAMIAMI TRAIL, NAPLES, FLORIDA, 34112, (239) 774 -8380; ASSISTED LISTENING DEVICES FOR THE HEARING IMPAIRED ARE AVAILABLE IN THE COUNTY COMMISSIONERS' OFFICE. June 4, 2007 1. Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance 2. Comprehensive Planning, Growth Management Plan Amendments A. CP- 2005 -2, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map (GGAMP/FLUM) and Map Series to expand "Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center ", to allow neighborhood commercial of approximately an additional 60,000 square feet, for property located at the SE corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and I" Street SW, in Section 9, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 7± acres. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] B. CP- 2005 -5, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and GGAMP Future Land Use Map (GGAMP/FLUM) and map series to amend the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, to expand the Subdistrict by 13 acres, allow up to 1 15,000 square feet of intermediate commercial and general office uses and allow residential uses at 15 dwelling units per acre, for property located at the NW corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 18± acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] C. CP- 2005 -6, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map (GGAMP/FLUM) and Map Series to create the "Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict ", to allow for the expansion and continued operation of the David Lawrence Center and the Church of God, and, to allow additional institutional and related uses, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway, specifically, Tracts 43, 50, 59, and 66, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates, Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 16.3± acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] D. CP- 2006 -4, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) to modify the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, Transitional Conditional Uses provision, to allow a church as a Transitional Conditional Use for the subject site abutting a residential use, for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road and ±300' east of Oakes Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.6± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] E. CP- 2005 -7, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) to modify "Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict" to add retail uses and increase building square footage from 40,000 to 70,000 feet, for property located at the NW corner of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road, in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 10.47± acres. [Coordinator: Marcia Kendall, Senior Planner] 2 June 4, 2007 F. CP- 2005 -9, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series to create the "Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict" for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands, to allow up to 90,000 square feet of retail, office and personal service uses, for property located at the NW corner of Immokalee Road and Platt Road, in Section 27, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 8± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] G. CP- 2005 -10, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series to establish the "Naples Big Cypress Commerce Center Subdistrict ", to allow up to 88,110 square feet of general and heavy commercial uses, consistent with the C -4 and C -5 zoning districts of the Land Development Code, for property located at the NW comer of US -41 East and Trinity Place, in Section 17, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 9.79± acres. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] H. CP- 2005 -11, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Mao (FLUM) to change the designation of the site from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands to "Rural - Industrial District ", to allow for approximately 500,000 square feet of building space for warehouse and manufacturing uses, for property located on the north side of US -41 East and 1,000' west of Trinity Place, in Section 18, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 42.5± acres. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] I. CP- 2005 -12, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series to create the "North Belle Meade Special Use Subdistrict" for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands and North Belle Meade Overlay, to allow earth mining, oil extraction and related processing, asphalt and concrete batch - making plants and their related uses, and all Sending Lands permitted uses, conditional uses and rights as permitted uses, and requesting an amendment to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) to reduce the Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards from 80 percent to 40 percent for this Subdistrict, for property located in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 950± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] J. CP- 2005 -13, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and Map Series to create the "Collier Boulevard Community Services Subdistrict" for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, to allow up to 368,000 square feet of church - sponsored institutional and residential uses, and allow non - church sponsored residential uses at 4.5 dwelling units per acre, up to 296 market rate and Essential Services Personnel Housing units, for property located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR -951), one -half mile north of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road (within the First Assembly of God PUD site), in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 69± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] — K. CPSP - 2005 -14, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to re- designate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands to either Neutral 3 June 4, 2007 Lands or Receiving Lands, for 90 properties located within Section 34, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, and Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Section 11, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, and Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 13, 14, 22, 27, 29 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, and Sections 15 and 21, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of ±3,606 acres total. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, GMP Planning Manager] L. CPSP- 2005 -15, Petition requesting amendment to the Transportation Element (TAE to add new Policies 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8, introducing Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plans (TCPPs), Transportation Corridor Preservation Maps (TCPMs), and associated tables and ordinances, to provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future transportation corridors. [Coordinator: Don Scott, Transportation Planning Director] 3. Adjourn 4 June 4, 2007 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Public Hearing for the 2005 Cycle of Growth Management Plan Amendments. (Transmittal Hearing) OBJECTIVE: For the Board of County Commissioners to review the 2005 cycle of amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan and consider approving said amendments for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CONSIDERATIONS: • Chapter 163, F.S., provides for an amendment process for a local government's adopted Growth Management Plan. • The 2005 cycle of GMP amendments consists of ten (10) private sector petitions and two (2) County- initiated petitions; another four private sector petitions are excluded as they were withdrawn by the respective applicants (CP- 2005 -1, -3, -4, -8). • The Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC), sitting as the "local planning agency' under Chapter 163.3174, F.S., held their Transmittal hearing for these petitions on March 5, 2007, and continuation hearings March 22, 2007 and March 29, 2007. • This Transmittal hearing considers amendments to the following Elements of the Plan: 0 Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and Map Series 0 Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) text and Future Land Use Map Series 0 Transportation Element; and 0 Conservation and Coastal Management Element Note: Because this hearing is for the sole purpose of considering GMP amendment petitions, the number of petitions is large (12 total) and the support materials so voluminous, and some exhibits are oversized, the Novus system is not used. The entire Executive Summary package, including all support materials, is included in the binders provided to the BCC and is available for review in the Comprehensive Planning Department office. Also note that correspondence received is included in the binder containing the Executive Summary. FISCAL IMPACT: There are no fiscal impacts to Collier County as a result of these amendments since final action is not being taken at this time (these amendments are not being considered for adoption at this hearing). If approved for transmittal, these amendments will subsequently be considered for adoption at hearings to be held later in 2007. The cost to process, review, advertise, etc. the private sector petitions is borne by the petitioner via the application fee. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Executive Summary has been reviewed by the County Attorney's office. These Growth Management Plan amendments are authorized by, and subject to the procedures established in, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, The Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, and by local Resolution #97 -431, as amended. GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: Approval of these amendments by the Board of County Commissioners for Transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs will commence the Department's sixty -day (60) review process and ultimately return these amendments to the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners for final Adoption hearings to be held later in 2007. ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES: For some of the private sector petitions, listed plant and /or animal species have been observed or are known to be on site, and some of the sites are known to contain jurisdictional wetlands. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders, the sites will be subject to all applicable local, state and federal environmental protection regulations. HISTORICAL/ARCHAEOLOGICAL IMPACT: None of the private sector amendments to the Growth Management Plan contain lands identified on the County's Historical /Archeological Probability Maps as being in areas of historical or archaeological probability. As part of the process of obtaining subsequent development orders, the sites will again be subject to review for historical /archeological probability. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL (EAC) RECOMMENDATION: Growth Management Plan amendments such as most of these are not reviewed by the EAC. However, the EAC did review petitions CP- 2005 -12 and CPSP- 2005 -14, both of which pertain to properties within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands designation. Petition CPSP- 2005-14 was reviewed on February 7 and March 7, 2007, and forwarded with a recommendation to transmit to DCA per staff's recommendation. Petition CP- 2005 -12 was reviewed on March 7, 2007, and forwarded with a recommendation to transmit to DCA per staff's recommendation with modifications as noted in the CCPC Staff Report, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff's recommendation follows each individual petition listed below. Note: For most petitions, regardless of staff recommendation, staff prepared text revisions to the petitioner's proposed text so as to provide clarity, proper format, correct grammar, etc. This staff modified text is what appears in the Resolution Exhibit A's unless the CCPC recommended other language. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION (CCPC) RECOMMENDATION: CCPC's recommendation follows each individual petition listed below. 1. PETITION CP- 2005 -2, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan to expand 'Wilson Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center', to allow neighborhood commercial of approximately an additional 60,000 square feet, for property located at the southeast corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and 1" Street SW, in Section 9, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 7± acres; Rural Estates Planning Community. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -2 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC not transmit petition CP- 2005 -2 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 7/0). Speakers: Eleven persons spoke. One person was in favor; nine persons were opposed (stated reasons included: proposal is premature; favor the isolation from commercial development — willing to drive miles to nearest commercial; Golden Gate Estates is intended to be rural in character and this petition is incompatible with that; piecemeal approach to commercial siting is inappropriate; sets a precedent for similar requests in future); and, one person stated more opportunities for public input were needed. Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner proposed to significantly revise the petition; rather than allowing C -1 through C -3 commercial uses per the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict (office, personal service, retail, etc), uses are now proposed to be limited to urgent care center, medical offices, medical - related uses such as wellness or physical therapy center, and professional offices. Additional data and analysis submitted includes a revised TIS, and a market study prepared for a GMP amendment submitted in the 2006 cycle directly across Golden Gate Blvd. (CP- 2006 -2 proposing 34± acres of mixed use development including 225,000 s.f. of commercial uses, of which 8 acres and 54,000 s.f. are for office development). Also, the petitioner purports to have sent a letter with post card survey "to approximately 2800 Golden Gate Estates residents who reside within the immediate service area for our client's ... proposed GMP amendment, CP -2005- 2" and that as of May 16, 488 post cards (17.5 %) were received with 96% of those favoring commercial development at the subject site. Staff is concerned that such a significant revision to the petition after the NIM has been held, and after the CCPC hearing has been held, subverts the public input process and the role of the CCPC. Nonetheless, staff reviewed the revised petition and support materials. As a result of that review, staff's findings, conclusions and recommendation are not changed; the issues raised for the original petition are still valid for the revised petition. One specific point about the market study is that it apparently fails to include 16.3± acres within the NW, SW and SE quadrants of the subject Neighborhood Center that are zoned E, Estates (the complete parcel inventory was not provided). This is especially relevant since the study shows such a small deficit (unmet need) of office space in the trade area - -- 22± acres in 2005 and 27± acres in 2010. Further, since the preferred use is medical office and urgent care center, staff suspects the trade area should be larger then the stated 2 miles; enlarging the trade area would increase the population, thus demand, but would also increase the available supply of land zoned - or designated so as to allow zoning - to allow these uses. 2. PETITION CP- 2005 -5, Petition requesting amendment to Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Mao and Mao Series (GGAMP /FLUM) to amend the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Inf ill Subdistrict, to expand the Subdistrict by 13 acres, allow up to 115,000 square feet of intermediate commercial and general office uses, and allow residential uses at 15 dwelling units per acre, for property located at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 18± acres; Golden Gate Planning Community. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -5 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC nottransmit petition CP- 2005 -5 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 7/0). Speakers: Seven persons spoke. One person was in favor (of commercial, but stated reservations about the residential component); six persons were opposed (stated reasons included: proposal is out of character with the area; commercial is available nearby /lack of need for more commercial; traffic concerns; Golden Gate Parkway corridor should be preserved from commercial development; proposal is contrary to uses allowed in the existing GGAMP Subdistrict and Colonnades PUD that were negotiated between land owner and civic association). 3. PETITION CP- 2005 -6, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) and Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Mao and Map Series (GGAMP /FLUM) to create the "Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict', to allow for the expansion and continued operation of the David Lawrence Center and the Church of God, and to allow additional institutional and related uses, for property located on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway, specifically, Tracts 43, 50, 59 and 66, Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates, in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 16.3± acres; Golden Gate Planning Community. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -6 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP- 2005 -6 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 7/0) subject to two stipulations: (1) petitioner to submit to staff, for review prior to adoption hearings, a needs analysis pertaining to expansion of the David Lawrence Center uses [this needs analysis has been submitted; staff has reviewed it and finds that it adequately demonstrates a need for uses provided by the DLC]; and, (2) petitioner to submit a conceptual site plan for review and consideration at adoption hearings. Speakers: Two persons spoke. One stated no objection to water management and preserve area on the added easterly five acres, and no objection to expansion of David Lawrence Center but only to account for development lost to road widening; the other person stated objection to expansion of David Lawrence Center only. Subsequent to the CCPC hearing, the petitioner has revised the petition to limit uses to the existing uses and those related to existing uses, thus has remove some of the proposed uses (libraries, government offices, civic and cultural facilities, and medical offices associated with group care facilities). The issue of expanded list of uses was raised by staff and discussed by CCPC, but staff does not believe the CCPC motion included elimination of these other uses. 4. PETITION NO. CP- 2006 -04, Petition requesting amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) to modify the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, Transitional Conditional Uses provision, to allow a church as a Transitional Conditional Use for the subject site abutting a residential use, for property located on the south side of Immokalee Road and ±300 feet east of Oakes Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 2.6± acres; Urban Estates Planning Community. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2006 -4 to the BCC with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, as modified by staff. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP- 2006 -4 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, per staff recommendation (vote: 8/0). Speakers: None. S. PETITION CP- 2005 -7, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) to modify "Livingston /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict ", to add retail uses and increase maximum building square footage from 40,000 to 70,000 square feet, for property located at the northwest corner of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road, in Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 10.47± acres; North Naples Planning Community. [Coordinator: Marcia Kendall, Senior Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -7 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP- 2005 -7 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, as modified by staff (vote: 6/3). Speakers: None. 6. PETITION CP- 2005 -9, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Mao and Mao Series (FLUM) to create the "Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict" for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands, to allow up to 90,000 square feet of retail, office and personal service uses, for property located at the northwest corner of Immokalee Road and Platt Road, in Section 27, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 8± acres; Corkscrew Planning Community. [Coordinator: Corby Schmitt, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -9 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC nottransmit petition CP- 2005 -9 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 7/2). Speakers: One person spoke, in opposition, stating concern for impact upon tranquility of the neighborhood and wildlife in the area, and questioning the petitioner's report as to the amount of opposition by the Big Corkscrew Island Civic Association (believes there was more opposition than reported). PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -10, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Mai) and Mar) Series (FLUM) to establish the "Naples Big Cypress Commerce Center Subdistrict ", to allow up to 88,110 square feet of general and heavy commercial uses, consistent with the C -4 and C -5 zoning districts of the Land Development Code, for property located at the northwest corner of US -41 East and Trinity Place, in Section 17, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 9.79± acres; Royal Fakapalm Planning Community. [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -10 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC not transmit petition CP- 2005 -10 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 5/1, with 1 abstention). During the course of the hearing, the petitioner proposed the following revisions: change text stating the Subdistrict "is intended to accommodate commercial development primarily associated with adjacent commercial lands to the west (zoned C -4 and C -5) under common ownership with the subject property" to a maximum of 10% will be associated with the adjacent commercial lands [emphasis added]; lower total allowable building area from 88,110 s.f. to 75,000 s.f.; limit allowable uses from C -4 and C -5 zoning district uses to C -3 and C -4 uses; and, add a requirement to provide 9 GAP housing units via the Transfer of Development Rights process. The CCPC declined to entertain these revisions. Speakers: One person spoke, in opposition, expressing traffic concerns. 8. PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -11, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Mao and Mai) Series (FLUM) to change the designation of the site from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands to "Rural- Industrial District', to allow for approximately 500,000 square feet of building space for warehouse and manufacturing uses, for property located on the north side of US -41 East and 1,000' west of Trinity Place, in Section 18, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 42.5± acres; Royal Fakapalm Planning Community. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -11 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP- 2005 -11 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 5/1, with 1 abstention). Speakers: None. 9. PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -12, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Mai) and Mai) Series (FLUM) to create the "North Belle Meade Special Use Subdistrict ", for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands and North Belle Meade Overlay, to allow earth mining, oil extraction and related processing, asphalt and concrete batch - making plants and their related uses, and all Sending Lands permitted uses, conditional uses and rights as permitted uses, and requesting an amendment to the Conservation and Coastal Management Element C( CME) to reduce the Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards from 80 percent to 40 percent for this Subdistrict, for property located in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 950± acres; Rural Estates Planning Community. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -12 to the BCC with a recommendation notto transmit the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC nottransmit petition CP- 2005 -12 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 7/1). The CCPC specifically expressed concerns for the impact upon wetlands, lack of hydro geologic study, and lack of conditional use process. Speakers: Five persons spoke. One person was in favor (stated the County would benefit by having needed materials for road construction, the environment would benefit from post excavation dedication to conservation, and the property owner would benefit by having reasonable use of property); one person did not state opposition but expressed concerns (increased traffic through Golden Gate Estates, more trucks in GGE at residences with the accompanying noise and pollution from truck maintenance at the residences); and, three persons were opposed (stated reasons included: the land owner would be adequately compensated through the TDR program; there would not be a hydrologic benefit, contrary to what petitioner stated; potential water pollution; loss of water through evaporation; negative impact to the environment; negative impact to the TDR program; contrary to intent and purpose of Sending Lands designation to protect environmentally sensitive lands through the TDR program — proposal allows habitat destruction and generation of TDR credits; an independent evaluation of rock inventory is needed. 10. PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -13, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map and Mar) Series (FLUM) to create the "Collier Boulevard Community Services Subdistrict', for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, to allow up to 368,000 square feet of church - sponsored institutional and residential uses, and allow non - church sponsored residential uses at 4.5 dwelling units per acre, up to 296 market rate of Essential Services Personnel Housing units, for property located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR -951), one - half mile north of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road (within the First Assembly of God PUD site), in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 69± acres; South Naples Planning Community. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CP- 2005 -13 to the BCC with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, as modified by staff. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CP- 2005 -13 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, as modified by staff (vote: 8/1). Speakers: None. 11. PETITION NO. CPSP- 2005 -14, Petition requesting amendment to the Future Land Use Map and Map Series (FLUM) to re- designate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands to either Neutral Lands or Receiving Lands, for 90 properties located within Section 34, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, and in Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Section 11, Township 48 South Range 26 East, and Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 13, 14, 22, 27, 29 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, and Sections 15 and 21, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 3,606± acres; Corkscrew, Rural Estates and Royal Fakapalm Planning Communities. [Coordinator: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CPSP - 2005 -14 to the BCC with a recommendation to approve for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs 17 of the 90 properties requesting re- designation, as reflected on the spreadsheet attached to the CCPC Staff Report [parcels 1, 2 (portion), 36 -41, 43, 56, 61, 70, 79, 91 (portion), 92 (portion), 95, 96]. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC approve petition CPSP - 2005 -14 for transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, per staff's recommendation except not to include the five parcels [43, 56, 61, 70, 79] listed at that time as represented by Don Lester /15,000 Coalition (vote: 4/3). A few weeks prior to the CCPC hearing, staff received a letter of authorization from a local land use attorney for Parcel 43 (Hideout Golf Course); however, this was not noted on the spreadsheet provided to CCPC — Don Lester /15,000 Coalition was still listed. That attorney did speak at the CCPC hearing. Speakers: Four persons spoke. Three were agents for property owners and supported re- designation of their clients' property; one person expressed concerns about the properties listed as represented by Don Lester /15,000 Coalition. 12. PETITION NO. CPSP- 2005 -15, Petition requesting amendment to the Transportation Element (TE) to add new Policies 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 and 3.8, introducing Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plans (TCPPs), Transportation Corridor Preservation Maps (TCPMs), and associated tables and ordinances, to provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future transportation corridors. [Coordinator: Don Scoff, Transportation Planning Manager] Staff Recommendation: That the CCPC forward petition CPSP - 2005 -15 to the BCC with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. CCPC Recommendation: That the BCC not transmit petition CPSP- 2005 -15 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (vote: 6/0). Speakers: None. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommendations for the 2005 cycle of Growth Management Plan amendments are as reflected above following each petition. CCPC RECOMMENDATION: The Collier County Planning Commission held their required public hearing on March 5, 2007, and continuation hearings on March 22, March 29, and April 19, 2007. The CCPC forwarded the 2005 cycle of GMP amendments to the Board of County Commissioners with recommendations as reflected above following each petition. PREPARED BY: w--�--DATE: �A Z0'7 DAVID WE KS, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: ZX06-" � DATE: 5-12110 % ANDY COHEN, AICP, DIRECTOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY)NVIRONMENTIAL - DATE: EPH K. SCMITT, AD INISTRATOR MUNITY EVELOPMENT & SERVICES DIVISION EX SUM Transmittal 2005 Cycle GMPAS G Comprehensive \Comp. Planning GMP DATA \Comp, Plan Amendments12005 petitions dw/5 -21 -07 RESOLUTION NO. 07- A RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA PROPOSING AMENDMENTS TO THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, ORDINANCE 89 -05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, THE TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, AND THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT, AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THESE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. WHEREAS, Collier County, pursuant to Section 163.3161, et. sea., Florida Statutes, the Florida Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, was required to prepare and adopt a comprehensive plan; and WHEREAS, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners adopted the Collier County Growth Management Plan on January 10, 1989; and WHEREAS, the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 provides authority for local governments to amend their respective comprehensive plans and outlines certain procedures to amend adopted comprehensive plans pursuant to Sections 163.3184 and 163.3187, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, Collier County has prepared plan amendments to the following elements of its Growth Management Plan: and Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Element Future Land Use Map and Map Series; Golden Gate Area Master Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series; Transportation Element; and Conservation and Coastal Management Element WHEREAS, the Collier County Planning Commission has considered the proposed amendments to the Growth Management Plan pursuant to the authority granted to it by Section 163.3174, Florida Statutes, and has recommended approval of said amendments to the Board of County Commissioners; and WHEREAS, upon receipt of Collier County's proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments, various State agencies and the Department of Community Affairs Words underlined are additions; Words stFuGk4hredgh are deletions 1 (DCA) have ninety (90) days to review the proposed amendments and DCA must transmit, in writing, to Collier County, its comments along with any objections and any recommendations for modification, within said ninety (90) days pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, Collier County, upon receipt of the written comments from DCA must adopt, adopt with changes or not adopt the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments, within sixty (60) days of such receipt pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes; and WHEREAS, the DCA, within forty-five (45) days of receipt of Collier County's adopted Growth Management Plan Amendments, must review and determine if the Plan Amendments are in compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Act of 1985; the State Comprehensive Plan; the appropriate Regional Policy Plan and Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: The Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the proposed Growth Management Plan Amendments, attached hereto as Exhibit A and incorporated by reference herein, for the purpose of transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs thereby initiating the required State evaluation of the Growth Management Plan Amendments, prior to final adoption and State determination of compliance with the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act of 1985 and Rule 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Determination of Compliance. THIS RESOLUTION ADOPTED after motion; second and majority vote this day of 2007. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA BY: JAMES COLETTA, CHAIRMAN Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: Marjorie M. Student - Stirling Assistant County Attorney Words underlined are additions; Words MAwA- threuQp are deletions 2 Exhibit A CP- 2005 -5 -- GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN Policy 5.2.3: [revised text, page 12] Recognizing the existing residential nature of the land uses surrounding the planned 1 -75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no further commercial zoning for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. No new commercial uses shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above - defined segment. This policy shall not apply to that existing peFti the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 2. ESTATES DESIGNATION a. Estates — Mixed Use District 7. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict [revised text, page 461 This subdistrict consists of two infill areas. The two areas are located at the northwest corner of Collier Boulevard and Green Boulevard and at the northwest corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Due to the existing zoning and land use pattern in proximity to the Estates Commercial In -fill Subdistrict (see Map 5) and the need to ensure adequate development standards to buffer adjacent land uses, commercial uses shall be permitted under the following criteria: a) Commercial uses shall be limited to: • Low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and intermediate commercial uses, in order to provide for small scale shopping and personal needs, and • Intermediate commercial to provide for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar to C -1, C -2, or C -3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 91 -102), adopted October 30, 1991. b) Rezones shall be encouraged in the form of a Planned Unit Development (there shall be no minimum acreage requirement for PUD rezones except for the requirement that all requests for rezoning must be at least forty thousand (40,000) square feet in area unless the proposed rezone is an extension of an existing zoning district consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan). c) Projects within this Subdistrict shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with adjoining commercial developments when appropriate. d) Driveways and curb cuts for projects within this Subdistrict shall be consolidated with adjoining commercial developments. e) Access to projects shall not be permitted from Collier Boulevard. f) Any project located within this subdistrict at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, less and except an easement for Santa Barbara Boulevard right -of -way, shall be subject to the following additional development restrictions: Words underlined are added; words etFuGk through are deleted. Exhibit A CP- 2005 -5 1. The site shall be limited to thirty five one hundred and fifteen thousand (36115,000) square feet of commercial building area. 2. Land uses shall be restricted to of ees eRI (residential /commercial) projects. 3. All principal structures shall be required to have a minimum setback of eae hundred (100) fifty 50 feet from the project's northern boundary. 4. The northern seveRty4ive (75) fifty 50 feet of the site shall be a green area (open space area). It shall be utilized for only water management facilities, landscape buffers, and similar uses. 5. The site shall have aF+ outdoor pedestrian friendly patio(s), that total at least #vefifteen hundred (1 500) square feet in area and incorporate a minimum of: benches or seating areas for at least twelve (12) thirty -six (36) persons, and vegetative shading, and a waterfall or water feature of at least efae-three hundred (4400 300) square feet in area, and brick pavers. 6. A twenty -five (25) foot wide landscaped strip shall be provided along the entire frontage of both Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 7. A minimum buffer of thirty -five (35) feet in width shall be provided along the project's western and northern boundary and ak)Rg -the eastem f (40) . A minimum buffer of fifty (50) fry eet width shall be provided along the western sixty (60) percent of the project's northern boundary. Where feasible, existing native vegetation shall be retained within these buffers along the project's western and northern boundaries. These buffers shall be supplemented with Oak or Mahogany trees planted a maximum of twenty (20) feet apart in a staggered manner; and a seven (7) foot wall, fence, or hedge that will, within two (2) years of planting, grow to a minimum height of seven (7) feet and be a minimum of ninety -five (95) percent opaque. 8. All buildings shall have tile or metal roofs, or decorative parapet walls above the roofline, and buildings shall be finished in light subdued colors except for decorative trim. Building heights shall be limited to 0Re (1) SteFy three (3)stories and a maximum of thirty -five (35) feet. 10. All lighting facilities shall be architecturally designed, and limited to a height of twenty -five (25) feet, . SUGh lightiRg faGilities Ghall be shielded from neighboring residential land uses, and comply with Policy 5.1.1 of this Element. Words underlined are added; words stFaskthrough are deleted. CO T E- N O h E ACT F a ME O K 0 Z 4 a F K O a K 6 e e s s c` ■ EXHIBIT A MAP2 GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP NAPLES IMMORALEE ROAD PREPARED II GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SVPPptT SECTION CdIMlN1Y DEALCPMENT AND ENPNONMCNTPL SEANCES VV9M EIL C: [P- 40M -M.DWC DATE C /R001 R 26E I R27E R 28E LEGEND INf1LL COM MER CIPL ❑ SL IILEMENi PREP ■ PnlvnR CLNIER GOLDLN GATE EPIES ■ ❑ ❑ ■ GOl➢EN GPiE PARKWAY IC C CONMERCIAAl SABDFSTR ICI SPN TP BARBARA COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT URBAN RESIDENTIAL RANI NRPP OE£RLAV DOKNiOYM CLN TER COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT CCLLIIN BWL(VpRp CDPMERCIK WBDSTRICT NEIGH BORX0 ® NOTE THIS OBXCTM1£5. CN AL SU BDIST RICT PINE RIDGE ROAD MIXED VSE WBDSTRICT INL LLL AIBN STRI i , AS DESCRIBED PCPCOO CENTER CO DESCRIBED H LAIN NIDE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. MAP CANNOT BE IMERPRETEO MTXCLT THE P LICKS MD 'AND USE DESIPUTION CBLN OE TX CA OEM DATE AREA MASTER PL CENTERS RESIDENTIAL ' BENSITV BAND CLPLS. DESCRIPTION a ME O K 0 Z 4 a F K O a K 6 e e s s c` ■ EXHIBIT A MAP2 GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP NAPLES IMMORALEE ROAD PREPARED II GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SVPPptT SECTION CdIMlN1Y DEALCPMENT AND ENPNONMCNTPL SEANCES VV9M EIL C: [P- 40M -M.DWC DATE C /R001 R 26E I R27E R 28E 3 0 a Q L I m'��� rIrteI _�_ 'MS L372115 H1S5 s ¢ v m _ MS 3J VtJa31 H145r l� � � ': Iry I m a r_ s m I I j to I l w Z a MS 3NV3 Hl v 2i - -v �aLT IV NVJ MS 33Vay It Hl _ m n CIHVAJ MOO VHVeNVB VtNVS W fN N� FN U0 WN 'ma NU r d m I c II w L LI 0 O MS 15 4185 m Q o m AIL DTI C I I � tt o� o� �a as "o w71 a awV ao. Exhibit A CP- 2005 -6 GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN Policy 1.1.2: The ESTATES Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use District and Subdistricts for: ESTATES - MIXED USE DISTRICT h. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict [new text, page 5] 5) Conditional Uses Subdistrict b) Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions: [revised text, page 42] Recognizing the existing residential nature of the land uses surrounding the planned 1 -75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, there shall be not further conditional uses for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, except as permitted within the Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict. Further, no properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above - defined segment shall be approved for conditional uses. This provision shall not be construed to affect the area described in Paragraph a), above. 2. ESTATES DESIGNATION — a. Estates — Mixed Use District 8. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict [new text, page 45] and convenient access onto Golden Gate Parkway. The following institutional uses are permitted through the conditional use process within the Subdistrict: a. Churches and other places of worship. b. Group care facilities (Categories I and II). c. Nursing homes and assisted living facilities. d. Essential services asset forth in LDC Section 2.01.03. e. Private Schools. f. Day care centers also be included within the PUD zoning district. Words underlined are added; words struck-thFeugh are deleted. Exhibit A CP- 2005 -6 a. Libraries b. Government offices. c. Medical offices associated with arouo care facilities d. Civic and cultural facilities. Words underlined are added; words eNusk through are deleted. C E UO LEGEND ^ INi- C...IN—L L I SEr1LCNCNr ARA ■ ACIINn cENICP JJJ❑ cUILEN GPrf OYY CPNLPSU PLO, gS�RIC PROFESSION NRVP OKPLAY ❑ SANTA BARBMA pOYN 1004 fl Xr[R IX.I AERCIM LUBpINIFT CONMEPCIU NBDIS7 ❑ URBAN RESIDCNIIPL COIUfR 90ULEVARD CU.NIRCIPL SUBq SIRICr ■RAxouL Bauavneo COYXL RCUL maolnRlcr xocxBa+NaoD RM1"I MIXED USE SURDInPICr CL x 1CP5 EI ERH LSIPICS SUBDRIRET I RE5DENML ■ Cp UE TT, PAPA., I OCNSry BAND UI O BgnPICI � � ® SS DESCPIUREL F CCPEAI NW DL E AN IE OB[TKS PCU Uil I BS ANNE iM LAND USE AOE9GVP O S Pill."IW SECTION OF LEE ICOLDCN U." ARCA nN' PLAN . — y f" Te AMI � APRIL 141 1998 -AMPEOEP AETMMN SA 1. :XHIRIT A CP -2005 MAP 2 GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP NAPLES IMMOKALEE ROAD OR pFIt W OIL WELL ROAD ANA of m AN ` RANDALL BOULEVARD � �pLAL \PALL Rp11L� COIRRBICLLL MY�TMCT BOULEVARD O W P DAVIS BOULEVARD" NAPLES IMMOKALEE ROAD R.R. M K >6 Y MeB� BB C y LW BMT P. o VANDBRBILT OR D uJ T BEACH ROAD p � V m a2 V PIN RD. WHITE B a MIAMI Meg D I�g < c E., z C B .xr.AU.R. a L ge 3 Buoo n O.O. PKWY. < 9K a SUBJECT BITE < MTRRyy. y f" Te AMI � APRIL 141 1998 -AMPEOEP AETMMN SA 1. :XHIRIT A CP -2005 MAP 2 GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP NAPLES IMMOKALEE ROAD OR pFIt W OIL WELL ROAD ANA of m AN ` RANDALL BOULEVARD � �pLAL \PALL Rp11L� COIRRBICLLL MY�TMCT BOULEVARD O W P DAVIS BOULEVARD" R.R. M K >6 Y y LW $ d o OR D uJ T � V y f" Te AMI � APRIL 141 1998 -AMPEOEP AETMMN SA 1. :XHIRIT A CP -2005 MAP 2 GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE MAP NAPLES IMMOKALEE ROAD OR pFIt W OIL WELL ROAD ANA of m AN ` RANDALL BOULEVARD � �pLAL \PALL Rp11L� COIRRBICLLL MY�TMCT BOULEVARD O W P a m_ F �i F" Q U) .a O E� F z x Q 0. W EF Ci z w Q 0 c� m w H r7= w � w r` Ua ry I I_ o o woa� ono of =aJ ¢o ' ui aoa - ms +s g�os i W OVA MU I � � I MS is 4109 a i MS 15 R9 MS es vtZ9 -- - -- m w H r7= w � w r` Ua ry I I_ o o woa� ono of =aJ ¢o ' ui aoa Exhibit A CP- 2006 -4 Golden Gate Area Master Plan: [pages 42, 43] d) Transitional Conditional Uses: Conditional uses may be granted in Transitional Areas. A Transitional Area is defined as an area located between existing non - residential and residential areas. The purpose of this provision is to allow conditional uses in areas that are adjacent to existing non - residential uses and are therefore generally not appropriate for residential use. The conditional use will act as a buffer between non - residential and residential areas. The following criteria shall apply for Transitional Conditional Use requests: • Site shall be directly adjacent to a non - residential use (zoned or developed; • Site shall be 2.25 acres, or more in size or be at least 150 feet in width and shall not exceed 5 acres; • Conditional uses shall be located on the allowable acreage adjacent to the non - residential use; Site shall not be adjacent to a church or other place of worship, school, social or fraternal organization, child care center, convalescent home, hospice, rest home, home for the aged, adult foster home, children's home, rehabilitation centers; and • Site shall not be adjacent to parks or open space and recreational uses; • Site shall not be adjacent to permitted Essential Service, as identified in Section 2.6.9 of the Land Development Code, except for libraries and museums; and, • Project shall provide adequate buffering from adjacent properties allowing residential uses. e) Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria: 1. Temporary use (TU) permits for model homes, as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code, may be allowed anywhere within the Estates -Mixed Use District. Conditional use permits submitted for the purpose of extending the time period for use of the structure as a model home shall not be subject to the locational criteria of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates -Mixed Use District. Temporary Use permits for model homes shall have a duration of three (3) years from the date of approval. No subsequent issuance of a Conditional Use permit shall be for a duration exceeding two (2) years. The total time period for Temporary Use and Conditional Use permits together shall not exceed five (5) years. 2. Conditional Use permits for excavation, as provided for in the Estates zoning district, are not subject to the locational criteria for Conditional Words underlined are added; words struck #hFGugh are deleted. Exhibit A CP- 2006 -4 Uses and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates -Mixed Use District. 3. The conditional use for a church or place of worship as allowed in the Estates Zoning District may be allowed on Tract 22 Golden Gate Estates, Unit 97. Words underlined are added; words stFusk4hFeugh are deleted. Exhibit A Future Land Use Element [page 33] CP- 2005 -2 Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. This center consists of all four quadrants at the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards (See Map 10). The NE and SE quadrants of the Center consist of Tract 1 and 2, Unit 14, Tract 17, Unit 13 and the western half of Tract 18, Unit 13 Golden Gate Estates. The NE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is approximately 8.45 acres. The parcels within the NE quadrant shall be interconnected and share access to Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard to minimize connections to these two major roadways. The SE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is 7.15 acres, allows 5.00 acres of commercial development, and allocates 2.15 acres to project buffering and right -of -way for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. The NW quadrant of the Center is approximately 4.98 acres in size and consists of Tract 144, Unit 11 of Golden Gate Estates. The SW quadrant of the Center is approximately 4.86 11_78 acres in size and consists of Tracts 124, 125, and the north 150 feet of Tract 126 Unit 12 of Golden Gate Estates. Words underlined are added; words struskttxeugh are deleted. EXHIBIT "A" CP-20052 MAP 10 WILSON BOULEVARD/GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD CENTER Colker County, Horida SUBJECT SITE CP-2005-2 LEGEND DEN GATE 17x SETTLEMENT ESTATES 5 ARE A A ADOPTED - SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 Ord. N- 2003-44 NEIGHBORHOOD PREPARED BY GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION TS CENTER COMMUNITY_DE [OPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES nlVlSzUN FJLE GGMP 43 2007DWG DATE. 1/2007 4-1 IMMOKALEE D// / j/ SUBJECT SITE CP-2005-2 LEGEND DEN GATE 17x SETTLEMENT ESTATES 5 ARE A A ADOPTED - SEPTEMBER 10, 2001 Ord. N- 2003-44 NEIGHBORHOOD PREPARED BY GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION TS CENTER COMMUNITY_DE [OPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES nlVlSzUN FJLE GGMP 43 2007DWG DATE. 1/2007 Exhibit A Future Land Use Element CP- 2005 -7 [Page 46] 3) Livingston/Pine Ridge Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict This Subdistict consists of two parcels; one parcel consists of 17.5 acres and is located at the southeast quadrant of Livingston Road, a collector roadway, and Pine Ridge Road, a minor arterial roadway. The second parcel consists of 10.47 acres and is located at the northwest quadrant of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road. In addition to uses allowed in the Plan, the intent of the Livingston /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict is to provide shopping, personal services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance and to provide commercial services in an acceptable manner along a new collector roadway. The Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring commercial, public use and high density residential properties and will utilize well - planned access points to improve current and future traffic flows in the area. b. Northwest Quadrant The feasibility of interconnections to the adjacent properties to the North and West will be considered and, if deemed feasible, will be required during the rezoning of the subject property. This quadrant shall be limited to a maximum of 70,000 square feet of buildina area total and limited to general and medical office uses, and retail uses. A maximum of up to 20,000 square feet may be retail uses. provided that the t buildiRg feet. Building height shall be limited to three stories with a 50 -foot maximum height. Words underlined are added; words struck thMugh are deleted. Exhibit A CP- 2005 -9 Future Land Use Element: [page 59] A. Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District 2. Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict This Subdistrict, comprising approximately 8 acres, is located on the northwest corner of Development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: a. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. b. The Subdistrict shall be developed as a unified planned development with a common architectural theme. C. The Subdistrict shall be limited to a maximum gross leasable floor area of 70.000 sauare feet. Subdistrict. e. At the time of rezoning, access shall be restricted as deemed appropriate so as to provide safe ingress and egress. f. At the time of rezoning careful consideration shall be given to maximum building Words underlined are added; words sir+isk threugh are deleted. Q t _m x2 W m W C6 i S i LU LU 777 O as U. 91, 1 1 S L9 1 I B SB 1 T 49 S T fit T 40 S T 41 S T 4B S a � � �3e $�3 �03s ; €:91E SGY aaW 1`a 000❑ E0! ': : $4 � Igg nrt � ygyg�p5p5$Yg�Yg"5'5 g�g "pp � � pBy ' N v IB $k $4giggi yaddd g�9 j � v�E s � F Y�° 000910- 1 z�i/ # s i 6 S e 29 °B q 9�s3i j 319 .. i 55ri[��xy aeuE€ vi e @@ g u �� Ei b a e � �q a ;����Ep pp E £ � � S�Es /5�g, D�£fl: !� �d�✓f �E � F� sb�]]pAp•s$ i�FB €�2��§ _ ®� 4£��si [Is OEM no Yo_e5 e e Q t _m x2 W m W C6 i S i LU LU 777 O as U. 91, 1 1 S L9 1 I B SB 1 T 49 S T fit k i k n u v IAA d _ I� — kt i+ �! y v S p 1 ��✓� /q�p�pi SIC��� 1E�` % �� a 9 Sf 1 S 99 1 1 9 t9 1 1 9 Z9 1 9 99 1 ` 1`a .8.= ': : $4 N 000910- �� Ei � ii ,+p, 44 ➢99 � p 9999q ='fps° Y 3 T iTf'€B 1'iTB7 t} T i 3 i y i k i k n u v IAA d _ I� — kt i+ �! y v S p 1 ��✓� /q�p�pi SIC��� 1E�` % �� a 9 Sf 1 S 99 1 1 9 t9 1 1 9 Z9 1 9 99 1 ` CORKSCREW ISLAND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL, SUBDISTRICT PETrrM CP•200608 NO- PREPARED BY: GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECIIDN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION P 50D FT DATE 2/2007 FILE CP- 2005- 09A.DWG LEGEND LWE I / i I I I / I RABBIT RUN ROAD LU iTER LN. _ I I I I i 1 PLATT ROAD a I SITE -09 PLATT ROAD SUBJECT P- 200! I I - I I I TURKEY D IVE WILU -_� WILD URK F.Y DR�I _ NO- PREPARED BY: GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECIIDN -- COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION P 50D FT DATE 2/2007 FILE CP- 2005- 09A.DWG LEGEND LWE Exhibit A CP- 2005 -10 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Policy 1.2: A. AGRICULTURAURURAL -MIXED USE DISTRICT 1. Rural Commercial Subdistrict 2. Naples Big Cypress Commerce Center Subdistrict [new text, page 54] Development in the Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: _. C. d. e. f. adjacent C -4 and C -5 parcels. the Florida Department of Transportation, and via internal connection to adjacent commercially -zoned parcels to the west. g. A fifty (50) foot wide landscape buffer shall be provided parallel and adiacent to U.S. h. vegetation and /or earthen berms to the areatest extent possible. Words underlined are added; words stfusk-tkreugk are deleted. O_` T 45 S T 47 S T 40 S / t6 � N d U gg 1� 5 2 _ . y Q S 0 p P R Y P: I g OF] OO El I` OBI ®1 3 4 E C d Y u 4 Q [r � � � S Sgggtp6 'gS s ' r kp�r F R■®O11®01111 H o 1 OEM P 1 9 a ' aYY s 3 F it {G i i g p o¢83� pi iW I !i FIr �9FYab 11 O012EN 9Ec == i w t w RI e .e 5 T 49 S I T 60 S 1 T SI S 1 T 52 S 6 / r•c w _ I g ' kp�r F d i w LU i- a at - W i r '- w S at 1 S 1t 1 ! $ BI 1 1 9 at 1 1 2 09 1 S 19 1 1 s Zs 1 1 9 e9 1 _• EXMBITA NAPLES BIG CYPRESS COMMERCE CENTER SUBDISTRICT PETITION CP- 2005-10 a i� ALES EXECUTIVE I COUNTRY CLUB SUBJECT SITE �s CP- 2005 -10 o �94>T9 I - A'� r V FIDDLER'S CREEK o T z iJo AK TREE R. � 0 QP R pF� Fl PREPARED BY: GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICE5 UMSTON DATE'. 2/2007 FILE. CP- 2005- 10A.DWG LEGEND F17A SUBDISTRICT Exhibit A FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT: II. Agricultural/Rural Designation B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 4. North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict CP- 2005 -12 [page 69] hard limestone, which provide source material for road construction and building materials. oil extraction and related processina. asphalt and concrete batch - makina plants, and a. All residential development shall be prohibited in the entire Subdistrict. b. Participation in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program shall be prohibited. C. At the time of submittal of a conditional use application, specific details shall be d. The area utilized for mining and mining- related activities, and any other land use(s) reauirina conditional use approval, shall be limited to 350 acres total. e. During the conditional use review, the County shall consider: that underlie the standard, wide undisturbed buffer strips lying equidistant from property boundaries where significant wetlands, uplands or habitat for listed species will not be disturbed. (2) reauirina over - mitigation and over - restoration, and better than no- net -loss _. results, with focus on minimizing both short-term and Iona -term impacts of mining operations. Words underlined are added; words struck through are deleted. Exhibit A C P- 2005 -12 (3) requiring innovative operating strategies such as: choosing and using haul (4) requiring innovative restoration strategies such as: requiring operators to oversized littoral zones to be established when excavations become lakes: food sources /foraging opportunities as wildlife attractors other elements of mitigation such as roosting and nesting bedding foraging or feeding, habitat and structure. (6) requiring introduction of Regional or Countywide strategies and practices aimed at reducing the impact of such mining operations such as: reducing speed 45. Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT [page 17] Policy 6.1.2: For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as designated on the FLU M, native vegetation shall be preserved on site through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria: Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards a. Receiving Lands: Words underlined are added; words shuck thFOugh are deleted. Exhibit A C P- 2005 -12 A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the total site area shall be preserved. b. Neutral Lands: A minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area shall be preserved, except that, for Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, located in the North Belle Meade Overlay, a minimum of 70% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 70% of the total site area, shall be preserved. C. Non -NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 80% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Rating provisions of the FLUE; d. NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 90% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE. e. Provisions a. through d. above shall also be consistent with the wetland protection policies set forth under CCME Objective 6.2. f. In order to ensure reasonable use and to protect the private property rights of owners of smaller parcels of land within lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District on the Future Land Use Map, including nonconforming lots of record which existed on or before June 22, 1999, for lots, parcels or fractional units of land or water equal to or less than five (5) acres in size, native vegetation clearing shall be allowed, at 20% or 25,000 square feet of the lot or parcel or fractional unit, whichever is greater, exclusive of any clearing necessary to provide for a 15 -foot wide access drive up to 660 feet in length. For lots and parcels greater than 5 acres but less than 10 acres, up to 20% of the parcel may be cleared. This allowance shall not be considered a maximum clearing allowance where other provisions of this Plan allow for greater clearing amounts. These clearing limitations shall not prohibit the clearing of brush or under -story vegetation within 200 feet of structures in order to minimize wildfire fuel sources. g. Within Receiving and Neutral lands where schools and other public facilities are collocated on a site, the native vegetation retention requirement shall be 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the site. North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict: W For earth mining, with or without related uses; asphalt and concrete batch- (2) All other uses: As required for Non -NRPA Sending Lands in Policy 6.1.2c of this element. Words underlined are added; words etwsktkreugh are deleted. N T 46 6 T u b T 46 6 SE$ee3 "s A yEE U �A_A �a9x T LU s "a EY as R 3 6 g} a In! W g� ®9 g 4 $eE i€ 5e l6 e a Il [o! ®I i R- S E t �'r d f all Y Qe�; $ ■at® ❑■®ova.., eon ❑ ®® giS9 3ryyl�'�"v� g A i EE dm= mfnN d E� a e 9 6 E a E.fig E�gms fdd.E § "e4 y r� �: E qq3p6 ;�ai s fit 1 s [t I s fit 1 1 9 at L s 0s 1 i 3 a T 46 8 I T 60 6 $a SE$ee3 "s A yEE a �A_A T LU pp i R- t f all G a m fr e i gg — 5 � 60 s T LU pp i R- t f all dm= mfnN d E� a e s fit 1 s [t I s fit 1 1 9 at L s 0s 1 i s §s 1� 1 9 is 1 1 8 92 1 19 30 31 6 NORTH BELLE MEADE SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT A PETITION CP- 200ra12 20 21 (ALLIGATOR ALLEY) S.R. 84 r PREPARED By GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE. 2/2007 _ FILE CP- 2005- 12ADWG - 5 JOINN� IIALI 0 000 FT 70DO rT. SUBJECT SITE CP- 2005 -12 28 33 4 LEGEND I r ® SUBDISTRICT 7� 4 W a f LL T 46 9 T {7 S T 40 3 T 4B 8 T b9 S T 51-9---T--T 6i S 4 4 1 E 6 �( pp 3a S g R a .B {$ R� H y9E �ydy 4jA g Y� A A ayiy g C�g 'ypj,y{E1 � �e if1■il 0 3 [ {]� ON � 14 11[ 11) p31 El: Elm "{S It��� i 85nEPC � g i� -fit all a :. �IOQ ®6�s @,�a. ❑����oO�a ea �i$aa8z �8 °i� =99�9Iiai���g989afD9a9�16�D _ I L_ d a :� p= €fie glg �pbp 2g[j 3jjp [I[ ❑o onJoi LU } LU c G a 6 g e 3 'ypj,y{E1 � �e if1■il 0 3 [ {]� ON � 14 11[ 11) p31 El: Elm "{S It��� i 85nEPC � g i� -fit all a :. �IOQ ®6�s @,�a. ❑����oO�a ea �i$aa8z I L_ d LU Ie LU 6 LU LU �e if1■il 0 5Y O\ 2 911 S L11 N i i 4 6 m � & W z \ as a 4`° @�'.r Lu � o = v ON W $ nl 9BB1 Bost 3191 s Ii e3 . 6 s� a d�e ss� s igb s as 1 Exhibit A CP- 2005 -13 - Future Land Use Element A. Urban — Mixed Use District [Page 3.31 17. Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict The Collier Boulevard Community Facility Subdistrict comprises approximately 69 acres services while serving the needs of the community at large. All development in this Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations: a. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. b. Allowable land uses: 1) Communityf� 2) 3) 4) this Subdistrict. 5) Parks open space, and recreational uses. c. The maximum floor area for institutional and other non - residential uses. accessory to the institutional uses within this Subdistrict. Words underlined are added; words etfusk through are deleted. 1 Exhibit A CP- 2005 -13 a To achieve the density of approximately 4 28 dwelling units per acre and to allow Subdistrict; or. services personnel dwelling units — comprised of a minimum of ten (10) 3) enter into an agreement with Collier County assuring that no fewer than 150 affordable- workforce and market rate housina units are constructed and as they become available will be offered first to persons involved in providing essential services in Collier County, such agreement being in effect for not less than fifteen (15) years including a minimum of thirty -five (35) dwelling units for those earning no more than 150% of the median income of Collier County, and a minimum of twenty -five (25) dwelling units for those earning no more than 80% of the median income. h. No more than 57 market rate dwelling units shall be constructed prior to the construction of all affordable - workforce housing dwelling units appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners. i. At the time of rezoning /PUD amendment consideration shall be given to k. At the time of rezoning /PUD amendment the petitioner shall be required to mitigate for the project's impacts upon affected roadways in accordance with the concurrence management system and as otherwise determined appropriate by the Board of County Commissioners. I. Residential development shall be phased Phase One development shall be not constructed durina Phase One For the 146 market rate dwelling units in Words underlined are added; words struck-thFOugh are deleted. N U L Q m 7488 1 T 478 1 T •B 8 1 T 4 8 s'6C RGiFU �Se ;S i��Y T BI 6 — yr � i ai e As9p S 4 Sp S � � K R�. R� 3pC. }. 9• Tg R' gF g ( y%, s S ¢¢$$p @p@gqgq pgpggqgq gqgq¢g¢g�y�y j ■� ®O ■ ■D■ z... dEli I ❑n 9 s Y iXli;yy f�5 O � e EgsP lv� Y _ r gglgggyg fi � � � � §pIpa S�48 �� a��loo ® ®�s���� ❑ui�o�al: i€�XX3X�E' Y oEEe � B O aa � tl499ff49fgi�4p9�f1�1yf g,3 LL 9� 6 it Bt I U 1I 1I — yr � i ai e As9p i i ❑ ❑�O,i ❑!I�O�I ®� 4 5 pG 38 4y4y g ( y%, s S ¢¢$$p @p@gqgq pgpggqgq gqgq¢g¢g�y�y j ■� ®O ■ ■D■ z... dEli I ❑n 9 s Y iXli;yy f�5 O � e EgsP lv� Y _ r gglgggyg fi � � � � §pIpa S�48 �� a��loo ® ®�s���� ❑ui�o�al: i€�XX3X�E' Y oEEe � B IR. L G � ¢ M e W p U WWA XAPIRO, t d� r \1 �m E0. of m i[� r� N U OL CB Btst I I s at 4I6 0s I is I a 2s 1Bt I I s BB I is I a 2B 1 I 1 7 g :pypB Osa . S:ppe ?52 a, �gXg� c C9a d i i LU j O Ir Z r W B O aa � � 7 x LL _ 6 it Bt I U 1I 1I G � ¢ M e W p U WWA XAPIRO, t d� r \1 �m E0. of m i[� r� N U OL CB Btst I I s at 4I6 0s I is I a 2s 1Bt I I s BB I is I a 2B 1 I 1 7 g :pypB Osa . S:ppe ?52 a, �gXg� c C9a COLLIER BOULEVARD COMMUNITY SERVICE SUBDISTRICT EXHI &TA PETmON CP- 2005.13 7 PREPARED BY: GRAPHICS AND TECHNICAL SUPPORT SECTION COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION DATE 2/2007 TILE- CP- 2005- 13ADWC 0� p►/ SCPLE �T a sao ET LEGEND E(a-- T 1 4 U T 48 5 T 47 S T 40 S T 49 S FS, U �h T 51 —3 T 53 11 a 1 116R. °zap a® - ❑❑[Dc ❑R i i e �.� g£��¢ Is YJ GyGy pi P Nil N s IIEY�M'Offl s ige�� Y g 11 a 1 116R. °zap a® - ❑❑[Dc ❑R i i e g£��¢ Is YJ GyGy pi P Nil N s IIEY�M'Offl s ige�� Y 11 p ;! ,p r I b Gu1� s 09 1 S I9 1 2 29 1 s f9 1 W N s Z Y .e F W sett sv1 �� seal p ;! ,p r I b Gu1� s 09 1 S I9 1 2 29 1 s f9 1 LL C a LL 2 LL 2 F- 0 Z r �Q d O Vhl - Soor -A-D 08VA37(108 21317700 > a o z a a. a v z cn a s 3 r z o m i o z n z a � c� w n � a 111 r O z Exhibit A Transportation Element: CPSP- 2005 -15 [page 13] OBJECTIVE 3: The County shall provide for the protection and acquisition and future right -of -ways. Policy 3.5: regulations that: i 2. 3. 4. 5. Transportation Plan, and provide for an annual update of all necessary maps and tables; and and 6. provide a process for advanced reservation donation dedication or any other means of conveyance by an affected property owner to the County for land included within protected areas. For the purposes of this Policy, protected thoroughfares shall include: 1. the required corridors on either side of the center line of an existing or planned roadway: or 2. 3. Policy 3.6 networks which have been identified throuah corridor studies: or protected areas at critical intersections including but not limited to proposed grade separated intersections. Words underlined are added; words stsask through are deleted. Exhibit A CPSP- 2005 -15 interpretation and approval. Words underlined are added; words StFusk through are deleted. Goi L'C►e-V Co vjuyn ry DATE: May 18, 2007 TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Comprehensive Planning Department SUBJECT: Growth Management Plan Transmittal Advertisement Due to the short time frame, we have yet to include the "Certified Advertisement and Affidavit' from Naples Daily News, as the ads will not appear in the paper until ten days (or May 24, 2007) and seven days (or May 27, 2007), prior to hearing, scheduled for June 4'h 2007. As soon as the "Certified Advertisement and Affidavit' have been received, they will be placed in this notebook, prior to forwarding to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for Transmittal Review. Thank you. Comprehensive Planning Department NAPLES DAILY NEWS Published Daily Naples- FL 33102 Affidavit of Publication State of Florida County of Collier Before the undersigned they serve as the authority, personally appeared B. Lamb, N ho on oath says that they sense as the Assistant Corporate Secretary of the Naples Daily, a daily newspaper published at Naples, in Collier County, Florida, distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, that the attached copy of the advertising, being a PUBLIC NOTICE in the matter of PUBLIC NOTICE was published in said newspaper 1 time in the issue on February 22 "d 2007. ,VPiant further says that the said Naples Daily News is a newspaper published at Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, and that the said newspaper has heretofore been continuously published in said Collier County. Florida, distributed in Collier and Lee counties of Florida, eseh day and has been entered as second class mail matter at the post office in Naples, in said Collier County, Florida, for a period of I year next preceding the first publication oftheattached copy of advertisement, and arrant further says that he has neither paid nor promised any person, firm or corporation any discount, rebate, commission or refund for the purpose of securing this advertisement for publication in the said newspaper. Signature e of aff anq Sworn to and subscribed before me Chia 22 "d of February. 2007 (Signature of notafy„public) Chanel A McDonald MYCOMMISSIONit DD210203 EXPIRES June 29, 2007 4ONDED wRU TROY FAIN INSURANCE. INC FF1 59J578 327 j p O N Wes+ t _ Oti �N .. P N O Cmw .�.. O W G � s ca -��.e2 � V m„ov J t~ i o M a f . . 'c � 5z R . 3� R � ltO 7 v . P✓ z3a zbb O Z U O M I M Cw ` .� .. C .0 �f � = D •y '. � � C �..y r l_ N D V U.x'� H W �i C r i0tlg Nerve NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING Thursday, February 22, 2007 138 lo0cali5 hereby given that a public hearing will be held by the Collier County Planning Commission on Monday, March 5, 2007 at 8:30 A.M. In the Board of County Commissioners Al ing -Room, 3r° Floor, Administration Building, County Government Center, 3301 East Tamlarr Trail, Naples, Florida, he pLFpose of the hearing is to consider recommendation on an amendment to The Future Land Use Element and Fdtum Land Use Map and Map Series, the Golden Gate Area Hasler Plan and Golden Gate Area Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Map Series, the Trensportellon Element and the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, of the Irowih Management Plan. The RESOLUTION title is as follows: .. D CP- 2005 -7, Petition requesting an amendment to the F l tl Use Element LM, to modify "Livlhridea lne Ridge Commercial (null Subdedria to add RESOLUTION NO. O]+ 'retail uses and increase building square footage from 40,000 to 70,000 feet, for A- RESOLUTION OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY instantly located at the NW corner of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Road, in COMMISSIONERS PROPOSING AN AMENDMENT TO Section 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, consisting of 10.47± acres. THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN, [Coortlinator: Marcia Kendall, Senior Planner] ORDINANCE 09 -05, AS AMENDED, SPECIFICALLY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENTAND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP AND MAP SERIES, GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN AND GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTERPLAN FUTURE LANDUSE MAPANDMAP SERIES, TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT, AND CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT AND FURTHERMORE RECOMMENDING TRANSMITTAL OF THE AMENDMENTS TO THE FLORIDA DEPARTMENT. OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS. ➢ CP- 2005 -1, Pelitisn requesting an amendment to the G Id G t A M 1 Plan (GGAMPI and C Itl Gain A Master Plan Future Land Use Map S�, LGGdN1EfE01lM1gp4MBQS9tig6, to create "Golden Gale Boulevard and Weber oulevarit Neighborhood Cenlef to allow up to 45,000, square feet or retail, office ;o ,pnd personal service uses, for property located at the SE comer of Golden Gate BoulevardlO011ier Boulevard (CR- 951), in Section 11, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 4.14± acres. [Coordinator: Michael goal, AICP, Principal t1k.Flanner] ') �iVr�P- 2005 -2, Petition requesting an amendment to the Goltlen Gale Area �ifiifipr Plan '(GGAMP)' d Golden Gate q M95121 Elan Equals L- d Use M (GAMPIF M) and M =to expand 'Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Cenler; to allow neighborhood commercial of - approximately an additional 60,000 square feet, for property located at the BE corner of Golden Gale Boulevard and 1=' Street SW, in Section 9, Township 49 'South, Range 27 East, consisting of 7P acres. [Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, A.. AICP, Principal Planner] ➢ CP- 21 Petition requesting an amendment to the Geffen Gate Area Master Pies LQQAMP) mij G Id Gate Am, Master Plan Fqtum Land Use May (GGAMPIF MI and M ten =, to create the "Gonzalez - Immokalee Road Commercial Subdistrict" for properly designated on the Golden Gale Area Future %v Land Use Map as Estates -Mixed Use District, to allow up to 40,000 square feet of retail, office and personal service uses, for property located on the SE corner of 'Immokalee Read and Wilson Boulevard, in Section 27, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 5.17± acres (Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] - ➢ CP- 20064, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden 1 Area Master -i El (GGAMP) and Golden Get, Arg, Mil Elan Eldraps Land U h 'IGGAMPIFLUMI MAP_aeFu_, to create the "Townsend Livingston Road Commercial Subdistrict ", to allow up to 40,000 square feet of commercial t professional and general once uses, for property located at the WE corner of Goltlen Gale Parkway and Livingston Road, In Section 30, Township 49 Bourh, Range 26 East, consisting of 5± acres, [Coortlinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] °D CX 20115 -5, Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gets Are. Mean, A Plan (GGAMPI, to amend the Golden Gale Estates Comment In011 Subdistrict, n to expand the Subdistrict by 13 acres, allow up to 115,000 square feet of I. intermediate commercial; and general office uses antlalloiw residential uses at g15 tlwelling units per acre, for property located al the LAW 6orner of Golden Gale Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range .26 East, consisting of 10k acres. [Caordindef Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal 'planner] ➢ CP- 2005 -6 Petition requesling an amentlmenf'to theta Id Gate A Meet,, (GGAMP) god Golden t o h or P Use Map AhP 1 1.. to create the 'Golden Gale Parkway lnsllulonal ffaid to allow for the expansion and continued operation of the David Lawrence Cenler and the Church of God, and, to allow additional institutional and related uses, for property located on the north side of Golden Gale Parkway. specifically Tracts 43, 50, 59, and 66, Unit 30, Golden Gale Estates. Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 16.3 ±acres, [Coordinator: Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] ➢ CP -20064 Petition requesting an amendment to the Golden Gate Area An= t to modif y the Con"mrs"USes SUbdi Il L Transitional Conditional 1. sex provision t. allow a church as a Translllonal C m illFinal Use for the -' ub]act site abutting a residential use for pmpedy located oa the south side of 'Jimmokalee Road and 1300' east of Dalme Boulevard, In Section 29, Township 48 $ouch, Range 26 East, consisting 012.6±an'.s. [Coordinator: Portly So and". Pr rei Philmont I. rTT,� -1T ➢ CP- 2005 -8,- Petition requesting an amendment to the IGJUI Land U Element LUE) @Do f 1 Land U Map fFWM) fill Map Series to change the designation of the subject site from Rural Fringe Mlxao Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands with Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay (NRPA) to RFMUD Neutral Lands, but impose the same restrictions as Sending -NRPA- or prohibit all development, for property located 2.75 miles north of Immokalee Read in Section 11, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 160 ±acres. [Coordinator: Michael Bo d, All Principal Planner] D CP- 2005 -9, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Use Element (ELLIE) and F rums Land Use M (ELUM) and M Series to create the 'Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict' for property designated An the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. Neutral Lands, to allow up to 90,000 appres feet of retell, oRde and personal service uses, for property located at the NW corner of Immokalee Road and Platt Road, in Section 27, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 8t acres, [Coordinator- Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] D CP- 2085 -10, Petition requesting an amendment to the Fu um L and U 1 (FLUE) d Future Land U M !F UMl tl h to establish the 'Naples Big Cypress Commerce Center Subdistrict. ro all up to 88,110 square feel of general and heavy commercial uses, consistent with the C4 and C-5 zoning districts of the Land Development Code, for properly located at the NW corner of US -41 East and Trinity Place, in Section 17, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting .f 9 .79± a.,.x. [Coordinator. Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner] tv CP. 21 Pelilion requesting an amendment to the Future Lantl Use Man (ELUM,, to change the designation of the site from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands to "Rural - industrial District', to allow for approximately 500,000 square feet of building space for warehouse and manufacturing uses, for property located on the north sitle of US -41 East and 1,000' west of Trinity Place, in Section 18, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 42.5± acres. ]Coordinator: Tom Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner] > CP- 2005 -12, Petition requesting an amendment to the Future Land Us, Element (ELU J tl F 1 L Us. M (EL�IIJI) d h to create the "North Belle Meade Special Use Subdistrier for property designated on the Future Land Use Map as Rural Fringe Mixed Use District. Sending Lands and North Belle Meade Overlay, to allow earth mining, oil extraction and ielatetlpmcessing, asphalt and concrete batch- making plants and their related uses, and all Sending Lands permitted uses, conditional uses and rights as permitted uses, and requesting an amentlment to the C r d Consul a tidwileff LLCM ) to reduce the Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards from 80 percent to 40 Percent for this Subdistrict, for Property located in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, consisting of 950 ± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner) ➢ CP- 20o5d3, Petition requesting an amendment to the Ft L dL EIa-mag1 (FLUE). d Ful Lure M (FWM) old o ;lo create the 'Collier Boulevard Community Services Subdisldcl" for pmpetly designated on the Future -rand Use Map as Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, to allow up to 368,000 square feet of church - sponsored inslitulional and residential uses, antl allow non- church sponsored residential uses at 4.5 dwelling units per acre, up to 296 market rate and Essential Services Personnel Housing units, for property located on the east side of Collier Blvd. (CR -951), one -half mile north of Rattlesnake- Hammock Road (within the First Assembly of God PUD site), 1. Section 14 Township 50 South, Range 26 East, consisting of 69± acres. [Coordinator: Corby Schmidt, Principal Planner] D CPSP- 2005 -14, Pelilion requesting an amendment to the F 1 Land U M (ELUM), to re- designate Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands to either Neutral Lands or Receiving Lands, for 96 properties located within Section 34, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, and Section 3, Township 48 South, Range 27 East, and Section it, Township 40 South, Range 26 East, and Section 25, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 13, 14, 22, 27, 29 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, and Sections 15 and 21, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, consisting of +3,641 acres total. !Coordinator David Weeks, AICP; GMP Planning Manager] @CPSP - 2005,16 Petition requesting an amendment to the Infirgigggifilen Flamer 1 M. to add new Policies 3.5, 3.6, 3.7 antl 3.8, iniroducing Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plans (TCPPF), Transportation Corridor Preservation Maps (TCPMsJ, and associated tables and ordinances, to provide for the protection and acquisition of adding and future transportation corridors. r [Coordinator: Don Scott, . TlapsPmlaNa. Planning Director] Calif., 2oanty Fl. Fl Coa 6 gpp6 ^, 1 �"I '.'.'is are Invited to appear and be hoard Coplas of the proposed amendment are available for inspection at the Comprehensive Planning Department. 2800 N. .raeshoe Dtive, Be Mondaythmugh Friday Any questions pertaining to those documents should be directed to the .bmprehenslve Piemmng Department. (239403- 2400), Written comments Ned with the Comprehensive Planning Department prior to March 5, 200], will he read and considered at IM1e public hearing, t I a parson decides to appeal any decision made by the Collier County Planning Commission with respect to any matter considered at such meeting or hearing, he will need a record A IM1e[ processing, and for such purpose he may need to ensure that a verbatim record of the proceedings is matle; which record Includes the testimony and evidence upon which the insist is to be based. li Ask P. Strain, Chairman y rin�ro - 10111er County Planning Commission X71 AGENDA ITEM 4B Coi[ ;er Cou-try STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY . DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MARCH 5, 2007 RE: PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -2; GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) I. AGENT /APPLICANT /OWNER: Agent: Michael Fernandez, AICP Planning Development, Incorporated 5133 Castello Drive, Suite 2 Naples, Fl. 34103 Applicant: Mr. Michael A. Corder 3821 3`d Avenue, SW Naples, Fl. 34117 Owner: Mr. Michael A. Corder 3821 3`d Avenue, SW Naples, Fl. 34117 II. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The property, containing 6.92 acres, is located in Golden Gate Estates in the southeast corner of Golden Gate Blvd. and I" Street, SW, in Section 9, Township 49 South, Range 27 East within the Rural Estates Planning Community. (see two maps that follow). 1 AGENDA ITEM 4B Source: Collier County Property Appraiser's records ill. REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan ( GGAMP) text and Future Land Use Map Series by: Amending Section HI.B.2.a.2)b) of the GGAMP as follows: Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. This center consists of all four quadrants at the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards (See Map 10). The NE and SE quadrants of the Center consist of Tract 1 and 2, Unit 14, Tract 17, Unit 13 and the western half of Tract 18, Unit 13 Golden Gate Estates. The NE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is approximately 8.45 acres. The parcels within the NE quadrant shall be interconnected and share access to Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard to minimize connections to these two major roadways. The SE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is 7.15 acres, allows 5.00 acres of commercial development, and allocates 2.15 acres to project buffering and right -of -way for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. The NW quadrant of the Center is approximately 4.98 acres in size and consists of Tract 144, Unit 11 of Golden Gate Estates. The SW quadrant of the Center is approximately 4.86 11_78 acres in size and consists of Tracts 124. 125, and the north 150 feet of Tract 126 Unit 12 of Golden Gate Estates. Underlined text is added, struck through teat deleted. 2 AGENDA ITEM 4B Amending the GGAMP Future Land Use Map Series by Amending Map 10 entitled, "Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Center by adding the subject 3 tracts of land, totaling 6.92 acres, to the existing 4.86 acres of land currently within the southwest quadrant of this neighborhood center. E HIBIT W CP- 2005-2 MAP 10 WILSON BOULEVARD /GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD CENTER F� Collier County, Florida pFlpti --= SUBJECT SITE CP -2005-2 ADOPTED - SEPTEMBER 10, 2003 Ord N., 2003 -44 NTS PREPARM GT: GRPPHIL$ AW TECHNICAL RIPPIXT MC N CONYLNITY DEVEl MENT AIL ENNR WNTAL 5ERYICES DIVISION FILE: D MP- <3 -200J D6G O1T : 1/'1005 3 LEGEND GOIDEN GRTE � SETTLEMENT EiTATES AREA NEIGHBORHOOD �euloxA��: � CENTER i A 3 LEGEND GOIDEN GRTE � SETTLEMENT EiTATES AREA NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER 3 AGENDA ITEM 4B IV. PURPOSEMESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: No specific development project has been advanced by the applicant for the subject 6.92 acre site as shown in Exhibit A (proposed map and text amendment). The purpose of this application is to amend the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center by increasing the center size in the southwest quadrant of this intersection from 4.85 acres to 11.78 acres. Such an amendment, if approved, would permit a rezone to proceed followed by, or concurrent with, a subdivision plat and /or site development plan. V. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: A. Existing Conditions of the Site. The site in question is undeveloped, heavily wooded, relatively flat and has frontage on SW 1s' Street, Wilson Boulevard, and Golden Gate Boulevard. B. Surrounding Land Use, Zoning and Future Land Use Designations. • North.... Existing land use to the north of the subject property is Golden Gate Boulevard and undeveloped land. The FLUM Designation to the north is both GGAMP Neighborhood Center and Estates. The existing zoning to the north is E, Estates. • East..... Existing land use to the east of the subject property is undeveloped land and Wilson Boulevard. The FLUM Designation to the east is both GGAMP Neighborhood Center and Estates. The existing zoning to the east is both CPUD (Wilson Boulevard Center) and E, Estates. • South... Existing land use is single family dwellings and undeveloped lots to the south. The FLUM Designation to the south is Estates. The zoning to the south of the subject property is E, Estates. • West.... Existing land use to the west of the subject property is 1s' Street, SW and single family dwellings. Existing FLUM Designation for the area to the west is Estates. The existing zoning of the area to the west of the subject property is E, Estates. There is an existing older small convenience store and restaurant/shops development located at the northeast corner of the intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard, occupying approximately 2 acres of land. This area is shown on the FLUM as a GGAMP Neighborhood Center and is zoned C -2. Finally, there is a small commercial center under construction at the southeast corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard at Wilson Boulevard which has a FLUM Designation of GGAMP Neighborhood Center and zoning of CPUD. In summary, the primary existing land uses in the area immediately surrounding or directly opposite the subject 3 properties are Estates -type residential with existing commercial use at the northeast corner of the intersection serving this Center and a small commercial development under construction at the southeast corner of this intersection. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 4 AGENDA ITEM 4B "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements." Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue... the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and analysis for the applicant, although it is staff's responsibility to identify any shortcomings in the data and analyses during the consistency review process and to request additional information that is deemed essential in the review of the submitted request for a plan amendment. Any outstanding deficiencies with respect to data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the responsibility of the applicant. A detailed synopsis of the adequacy of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment is set forth with specificity below. The following is a summary of the background of the planned "Wilson Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard Center" (1) History of Citizen Participation and Adoption of the "Golden Gate Area Master Plan" by the The GGAMP was adopted within the context of the following, which is an excerpt from the Master Plan's Introduction Section found on page 2 of the GGAMP. 'As part of the revised Growth Management Plan, the County adopted the original Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) in 1991. The GGAMP was further revised in 1997. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan provides growth management regulations for the designated Golden Gate Area (see Map 1). The Golden Gate Area was previously subject to the regulations outlined in the County's Future Land Use Element (FLUE). However, in 1991, the unique characteristics of the area resulted in adoption of a Master Plan for Golden Gate, as a separate Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. This Master Plan superseded former Objective 1, Policy 1. 1, and Policy 1.3 of the FLUE. All other Goals, Objectives, and Policies contained in the FLUE and all other Elements of the Growth Management Plan remain applicable to the Golden Gate Area. In addition, the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map will be used instead of the County -Wide Future Land Use Map. In April 1996, the Board of County Commissioners adopted the Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) for Collier County. As a result of the recommendations made in the EAR, Ordinance 91- AGENDA ITEM 4B 15, which adopted the original Golden Gate Area Master Plan, was repealed and a new Ordinance 97 -64 was adopted. In February of 2001, the Board of County Commissioners directed staff to initiate a restudy of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. Accordingly, in June of 2001, Comprehensive Planning Section Staff requested that the Board appoint an advisory committee, consisting of residents of Golden Gate City and Golden Gate Estates, to aid Staff in the restudy process. The Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee met on over twenty (20) occasions, between June 2001 and June 2003, to consider proposed amendments to the GGAMP, as well as other matters related to the Golden Gate Area. All meetings were open to the public, many of these meetings were well attended. The restudy process was divided into two phases. The County transmitted Phase I amendments to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in April, 2003. These amendments were adopted, as Ordinance 2003 -44 in September, 2003. Phase II amendments were adopted in October, 2004, as Ordinance 2004 -71." (2) History of Ownership of the 3 Subject Tracts of Land The County Property Appraiser's records and the application for this amendment to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) both show that the current owner caused the recordation of a deed in his name for 2 of the 3 subject tracts of land in September, 2004, with the P tract being recorded in June, 2005. • North.... single family residential • East..... single family residential • South... single family residential • West .... single family residential Commercial Development There has been some very recent commercial development within the existing boundaries of the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center as follows: • Northeast corner of intersection. Approximately 2 -acres of the 8.45 acres included in this corner of the Neighborhood Center are developed with a convenience store, small restaurant, and shops under C -2 zoning. The remaining approximately 6.45 acres of the 8.45 acres is currently undeveloped. • Southeast corner of intersection. This 7.15 -acre corner of the Neighborhood Center is known as `Wilson Boulevard Center CPUD, a Commercial Planned Unit Development'. A total of 5.0 acres is under development and 2.15 acres set aside for Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard right of way purposes. This portion of the center will be built out in the near future. • Southwest corner of intersection. A 4.19 acre portion of the 4.98 acres within the Neighborhood Center are zoned in the Commercial Planned Unit Development District (CPUD) by approval of Ordinance No. 06 -47 by the Board of County Commissioners on October 10, 2006. The development is known as "Snowy Egret Plaza CPUD, A Commercial Planned Unit Development'. This site is currently undeveloped. • Northwest corner of intersection. This 4.98 acres zoned E, Estates, and designated as part of the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center is currently undeveloped. 6 AGENDA ITEM 4B In summary, the recent trends in land development surrounding the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center are clearly very low density Estates -type single family detached residential. There have been no new trends or changes in this development pattern of the surrounding area since the October, 2004, amendment to the GGAMP. The continuing residential development surrounding this Center is in keeping with the GGAMP. Additionally, the commercial developments, both existing and under construction at the northeast and southeast corners of this intersection, are in keeping with the GGAMP for this neighborhood center. GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD AREA MASTER PLAN IS GRANTED. The granting of this FLUM amendment would create a lagged Center boundary in the southwest quadrant of this intersection which would protrude farther west than the west boundary of the Center in the northwest quadrant of the intersection and farther south than the and south boundary of the Center in the southeast quadrant of this intersection. This lagged boundary would likely involving properties presently located outside of the existing neighborhood center boundary. Additionally, with the approval of this requested amendment, the abutting properties would then be eligible for conditional uses as provided for in the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the GGAMP. In summary, approval of this request may lead to: • uncertainty by surrounding residential property owners of the permanency of the boundaries of this center; • negative impacts (noise, lights, smells, traffic) upon the existing adjoining and nearby single family properties to the east, south, and west of the subject tracts of land; • similar requests from other owners of other properties immediately adjoining or near the boundaries of the present center; • creeping commercial strip development and higher intensity development along both Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard; and • a greater future difficulty of the County in defending denials of similar amendments to the FLUM for higher intensity non - residential and mixed use developments near this intersection. Staff believes that the application to expand this neighborhood district is premature and unwarranted for the following reasons: • Wilson Boulevard/Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center Status. At present, 9.15 acres (36 %) of the existing 25.56 -acre Wilson Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard Center is developed, under construction, or set aside for street right of way, leaving 16.56 vacant acres (64 %) within the existing Center boundaries for future neighborhood commercial development through re- zonings. • Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Neighborhood Center. The existing 21.84 -acre "Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center" (3 miles to the east) is 100% vacant land at this time. This Center, once developed, will also be easily accessible to the residents surrounding the Wilson Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard AGENDA ITEM 48 Center, which makes the need for the subject Center's expansion seem doubtful at this time or any time in the near future. • Orange Tree PUD. The Orange Tree PUD, located 3 miles to the northeast of the subject property (east side of Immokalee Road and north of Randall Boulevard) has a total of 60,000 square feet of commercial building floor area authorized on 22 acres in the PUD with 21,515 square feet of building space having received permits to date. A pending zoning application would increase the allowable commercial development in Orange Tree PUD to 34 acres and 309,000 square feet. • The East of County Road 951 Study. This study, presently underway, will provide an overall calculation of land use needs, including commercial land, within the area of Collier County, east of County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard). Until this study is completed, approval of additional commercial development may be premature. In summary, there does not appear to be a public need at this time to expand the "Wilson Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard Center", given the availability of 16.56 acres of vacant land within this Center and the 21.84 vacant acres of land within the 'Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center" 3 miles to the east in addition to the 60,000 square feet of Orange Tree PUD- authorized commercial building space. As an alternative to the GMPA being requested, the applicant could pursue a conditional use permit for a transitional use between the existing Center and the Estates properties to the south and west in accordance with the "Conditional Uses Subdistrict" of the "Golden Gate Area Master Plan ". UKUWTN MANAGEMENT PLAN. In view of the analysis of this request as outlined above, the following inconsistencies with the GMP and the GGAMP have been found: "Neighborhood Center Subdistrict: Recognizing the need to provide basic goods, services and amenities to Estates residents, Neighborhood Centers have been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. The Neighborhood Center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning." In summary, the current Wilson Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard Center" does not guarantee commercial zoning to properties within or outside of the currently designated center. Further, an addition to the boundaries of this center will discourage proper subdistrict development intended to concentrate commercial zoning so as to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial development and create local focal points within the Golden Gates Estates Community. COMMERCIAL DEMAND ANALYSIS The applicant has submitted a brief commercial demand analysis as part of the submittal for this amendment to the GGAMP. However, staff analysis indicates the lack of analysis within the report of the competing impacts upon the subject Neighborhood Center from the following nearby approved or planned commercial areas: • approved Orange Tree PUD- 60,000 square feet of commercial building space, of which 21,515 square feet has been permitted (Neighborhood Shoppes at Orange Tree); E AGENDA ITEM 4B • competing impacts of planned neighborhood commercial at Golden Gate Boulevard /Everglades Boulevard; • Potential for Rural Villages in the RFMUD that would include commercial component that could meet some of the future commercial demand. This includes the pending Immokalee Road South PUD extending from Immokalee Road to future Vanderbilt Beach Road extension, west of Golden Gate Estates; and • A Rural village is allowed in the North Belle Meade Overlay District south of this Neighborhood Center. In summary, the commercial demand analysis is incomplete and overstates the demand for the need of additional planned commercial development at the Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard intersection, beyond that which is already authorized by this GGAMP Neighborhood Center. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS The Environmental Services Department finds that there are no conflicts posed by the proposed GMP amendment with Environmental Services Department policies and programs. However, at the time of the PUD or construction plans, the native vegetation requirement of 15% will be assessed. ARCHAELOGICAL IMPACTS This land is located outside of any areas of historical or archaelogical as identified on the County's Historical / Archaelogical Probability maps, so no cultural assessment of these properties is required. The applicant has also had written correspondence with the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources and it has been determined that there are no archaelogical /historic resources on this site. TRAFFIC CAPACITY/TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ANALYSIS Transportation Planning Staffs review and analysis is as follows: The subject property is located at the southwest corner of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard and proposes 45,000 square feet of commercial floor space.The project produces 4,040 daily gross new trips (2 -way) and 370 PM Peak Hour gross new trips. The existing and committed (E +C) network consists of Golden Gate Boulevard as a four lane section west of the property and a two lane section to the east. The two lane section is expected to be improved within the five year planning period to four or possibly six lanes. The application shows approximately 49% pass by which is consistent with a rural shopping center located at the comer of two major roadways. It should be noted that the pass by rate in this location may be even higher. The reduction would mean that the net new trips would be roughly half of the above project trips although the total trips would still impact the turns at the project driveways. The growth rate on Golden Gate Boulevard has exceeded 10% in the past three years and is expected deficient in 2008. AGENDA ITEM 48 It is anticipated that the completion of Vanderbilt Beach Road extension from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard and continuing east will bring Golden Gate Boulevard back into an acceptable level of service. The Vanderbilt Beach Road extension is funded only for design in the five rear planning period. Conclusion: The addition of 45,000 square feet of commercial is not consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. However, the addition of commercial services at this location would provide a destination that would reduce the need for the local resident to travel back to the urban area for these services. The project also has an above average potential for pass by at this location. Recommendation: That this project is approved with the stipulation that the level of service on Golden Gate Boulevard is at "E" or better and Vanderbilt Beach Road extension is completed from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard prior to project impacts on the roadway network. However, the extension of Vanderbilt Beard Road is not included in the County's financially feasible Capital Improvements Element. PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACTS • Potable Water. Public Utilities advises that this project location is not within the Collier County Water and Sewer District Service Area. This project is located on the zone of the existing Collier County Tamiami Wellfield. The Rules and Regulations for projection of wellfields need to be followed. All well sites and pipeline easements located on and close to this project need to be shown on all future site development plans, subdivision plats or any other site plan applications. Further, the applicant acknowledges that the development of the parcel will require the installation of a potable water well consistent with the applicable provisions of the LDC and other jurisdictional agencies including FDEP and SFWMD. • Sanitary Sewer. The applicant acknowledges that public sanitary sewer facilities are not available in the immediate area and therefore the development of the parcel will require the installation of a septic tank system to be permitted consistent with the applicable provisions of the LDC and other jurisdictional agencies including FDEP and SFWMD. • Drainage. The proposed development will be designed to comply with the 25 year, 3 day storm standards and other applicable standards of the LDC and other jurisdictional agencies including the SFWMD. • Solid Waste. The established Level of Service (LOS) for solid waste is two years of lined cell capacity at previous three years average tons per capital disposal rate with 10 years of permitted landfill capacity available for Collier County solid waste disposal. No adverse impacts to the existing solid waste facilities from this 45,000 square foot project are anticipated. • Parks. The proposed development will not increase the population density and, therefore, will have no affect on the community and the regional parks. • Arterial and Collector Roads, A Traffic Impact Statement was prepared by the applicant, reviewed by the Collier County Transportation staff and has been addressed in the previous section. 10 AGENDA ITEM 48 VII. FINDINGS AND CONLUSIONS The following are findings and conclusions as a result of the reviews and analyses of this request: 1. East of 951 Study. Due to the East of 951 Study, now underway, this amendment may be premature at this time. 2. GGAMP Re -Study Committee. The GGAMP Restudy Committee did not recommend a neighborhood center on the subject property, rather the neighborhood center location and size as presently exists. 3. The Existing surrounding land use adjoining and in close proximity of the subject properties is single family detached in all directions as represented by large Estates lot development. The only nearby existing commercial development is located on an approximately 2 -acre site at the northeast corner of the intersection of Wilson Boulevard at Golden Gate Boulevard and the 5 -acre PUD, currently under construction, at the southeast corner of this intersection. 4. The Trends in land development and Street Development. Land development has been single family detached Estates type residential development in all directions from the subject 3 tracts of land with the exception of the non - residential commercial development located at the northeast and southeast corners of Wilson Boulevard at Golden Gate Boulevard. Estates housing construction has been very substantial in recent years. If this residential construction continues there will be some yet to be determined demand for retail and personal service uses as envisioned in the GGAMP for the Golden Gate Boulevard/Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard /Everglades Boulevard intersections. However, the timing and extent of the demand for such commercial developments at the subject intersection is dependent upon a number of factors including the rate of new residential construction, proximity of competing commercial sites, and changing demographics, traffic and consumer spending patterns. For example, the current widening of Immokalee Road and substantial new residential developments just 3 miles to the north of the subject site may well generate demand for larger shopping and service areas than could be expected on Golden Gate Boulevard, thus reducing the demand for commercial development on Golden Gate at both the Wilson Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard intersections. Further, the pending extension of Vanderbilt Beach Road, paralleling Golden Gate Boulevard just 1 mile to the north, may have the effect of initially reducing traffic counts on Golden Gate Boulevard and the rate of growth of future traffic counts. Lower traffic counts could well result in a reduction in the need for future commercial land development at this intersection. 5. The Future Land Use Map for the area immediately surrounding the subject 3 properties is Estates type development with the exception of the adjoining Neighborhood Center designation for the land to the east and north of the subject 3 tracts. 6. The Permanency of the Boundaries of the Center will be compromised if the proposed amendment to the GGAMP is approved and could lead to other similar future amendment requests on lands adjoining the current Center boundaries in the southeast and northwest quadrants of this intersection and Center. 7. The Availability of undeveloped neighborhood center land includes 23.56 acres of undeveloped land within the subject "Wilson Boulevard /Golden Gate Boulevard Center' and AGENDA ITEM 4B an additional 21.84 acres of undeveloped land within the "Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center ". This amount of undeveloped Center land is a good indicator that the requested additional 6.92 acres of land for the subject Center expansion is unwarranted at this time. VIII. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING ON JANUARY 3 2007 The agent/applicant duly advertised, noticed and held the required NIM on January 3, 2007, at 6:00pm at the Estates Branch Library, 1266 Golden Gate Boulevard. The meeting was attended by approximately 25 to 30 persons having an interest in the application. The following were some of the concerns /questions /statements voiced by those attending the meeting after listening to the applicant's proposal: • Will the proposed Walgreens Drug Store happen? • Will there be vehicular access to 1St Street? • Concerns about the additional noise, traffic, lights at night, and smells from dumpsters (particularly from homeowner on the west side of 1St Street) and that a 25 foot wide buffer would not be sufficient. • Concern about this being the beginning of a "cancer" of commercial development and higher intensity development which is what some of those present stated that they did not want to happen in the Estates. • Several persons stated that they do not want more commercial near their homes and that driving to existing commercial areas poses no problems for them. • The applicant pointed out that there is a proposed mixed use development with commercial and housing proposed for the approximate 36 acres on the north side of Golden Gate Boulevard just to the west of Wilson Boulevard and that there is an application pending for that development in which he is personally involved (GMP Amendment Petition CP- 2006 -2). This statement was made by Mr. Fernandez, the applicant's representative, after a member of the audience raised the subject and asked questions about it. IX. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL: The Environmental Council does not normally review this type of application. X. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the Office of the Collier County Attorney. Xi. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: In view of the reviews and analyses provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward Petition CP- 2005 -02 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs. 12 AGENDA ITEM 4B Prepared by: \\�%9� 'W f��� Date: Thomas Greenwood, AICP, Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed by: I Date: David Weeks, AICP, Manager Compr en iv Planning Department Reviewed by: Date: Randy Cohen, AICP, Director Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed by:/ a%l • ...U�,e Date: 2 - Zo -09- Marjor M. Student - Stirling Assistant County Attorney Office of the Collier County Attorney Approved by: Date: ^ n Jo eph K. Schmitt, Administrator C mmunity Development and Environmental Services Division PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -02 This petition has been advertised for the March 5, 2007, CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 4, 2007, BCC Meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mr. Mark Strain, Chairman Attachments: Exhibit A (Map 10) reflecting the proposed amendment to the FLUM and accompanying text amendment. 16 Agenda Item 4E COLL1eY COLLHty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: March 5, 2007 RE: PETITION CP- 2005 -5, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] AGENT /APPLICANT /OWNERS Agent/Applicant/: Athina Kyritsis Owner Colonnade on Santa Barbara, LLC 2950 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 16 Naples, FL 34103 (Tract 112, Unit 30, GGE) Owners: Leon R. Cirou, Trustee 2925 Santa Barbara Boulevard Naples, FL 34116 (S. 150 ft. of Tract 111, Unit 30, GGE) Steven W. and Talitha Cirou 2915 Santa Barbara Boulavard Naples, FL 34116 (N. 180 ft. of Tract 111, Unit 30, GGE) Beverly J. Gatti 5731 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34116 (W. 150 ft. of Tract 98, Unit 30, GGE) Marvin E. Smith 5715 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34116 (E. 180 ft. of Tract 98, Unit 30, GGE) Agenda Item 4E GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject properties, containing 18± acres, are located in Golden Gate Estates at the northwest corner of the Santa Barbara Boulevard /Golden Gate Parkway intersection, in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and is located within the Golden Gate Planning Community. [In 1999, a portion (6.8± ac.) of the site was the subject of a GMPA request (petition CP -99-2) for retail and office uses; the BCC failed to approve the petition in 2000. In 2000, a revised version of the 1999 petition, with additional retail uses, was submitted (CP- 2000 -7); the BCC approved the petition in 2001, but limited development to office uses only. This 6.8± acre parcel is zoned PUD, Colonades at Santa Barbara.] I, ![PLOT — 1 m >4 83 90 I L— IN - C• r 9A rOpOSC(t "9 CPUD caDMIM AT GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY z:urs eaeeu� j 9� T In y:c P.U.9 s P.U. — N II. REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) text and Future Land Use Map by: Amending the Estates - Mixed Use District to allow for the expansion of the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict; 2. Amending Policy 5.2.3 to allow the subject request — the expansion of the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict; and 3. Revising the Future Land Use Map and Map 5, Golden Gate Commercial Infill Subdistrict, to depict the expansion of this Subdistrict. The proposed amended Subdistrict text is as follows: (Single underline text is added, single s4ikethreugh text is deleted — both as proposed by the petitioner.) 2. ESTATES DESIGNATION a. Estates — Mixed Use District 7. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict [revised text, page 46] This subdistrict consists of two Infill areas. The two areas are located at the northwest corner of Collier Boulevard and Green Boulevard and at the northwest Agenda Item 4E corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Due to the existing zoning and land use pattern in proximity to the Estates Commercial In -fill Subdistrict (see Map 5) and the need to ensure adequate development standards to buffer adjacent land uses, commercial uses shall be permitted under the following criteria: a) Commercial uses shall be limited to: • Low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and intermediate commercial uses, in order to provide for small scale shopping and personal needs, and • Intermediate commercial to provide for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar to C -1, C -2, or C -3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 91 -102), adopted October 30, 1991. b) Rezones shall be encouraged in the form of a Planned Unit Development (there shall be no minimum acreage requirement for PUD rezones except for the requirement that all requests for rezoning must be at least forty thousand (40,000) square feet in area unless the proposed rezone is an extension of an existing zoning district consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan). c) Projects within this Subdistrict shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with adjoining commercial developments when appropriate. d) Driveways and curb cuts for projects within this Subdistrict shall be consolidated with adjoining commercial developments. e) Access to projects shall not be permitted from Collier Boulevard. f) Any project located within this subdistrict at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, less and except an easement for Santa Barbara Boulevard right -of -way, shall be subject to the following additional development restrictions: The site shall be limited to thiFty fWe one hundred and fifteen thousand (35115,000) square feet of commercial building area. Land uses shall be restricted to intermediate commercial and offices enfy, and mixed use residential projects. Residential density shall be limited to 15 units per acre. 3. All principal structures shall be required to have a minimum setback of one hundred (1 00) fifty 50 feet from the project's northern boundary. 4. The northern fifty 50 feet of the site shall be a green area (open space area). It shall be utilized for only water management facilities, landscape buffers, and similar uses. 5. The site shall have an outdoor pedestrian friendly patio(s), that total at least five hundred (500) square feet in area and incorporate a minimum of: benches or seating areas for at least twelve (12) persons, and vegetative shading, and a waterfall or water feature of at least one hundred (100) square feet in area, and brick pavers. 6. A twenty -five (25) foot wide landscaped strip shall be provided along the entire Agenda Item 4E frontage of both Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. A minimum buffer of thirty -five (35) feet in width shall be provided along the project's western and northern boundary . A minimum buffer of fifty (50) feet in width shall be provided along the western sixty (60) percent of the project's northern boundary. Where feasible, existing native vegetation shall be retained within these buffers along the project's western and northern boundaries. These buffers shall be supplemented with Oak or Mahogany trees planted a maximum of twenty (20) feet apart in a staggered manner; and a seven (7) foot wall, fence, or hedge that will, within two (2) years of planting, grow to a minimum height of seven (7) feet and be a minimum of ninety -five (95) percent opaque. 8. All buildings shall have tile or metal roofs, or decorative parapet walls above the roofline, and buildings shall be finished in light subdued colors except for decorative trim. 9. Building heights shall be limited to fiery three (3)- stories and a maximum of thirty -five (35) feet. 10. All lighting facilities shall be architecturally designed, and limited to a height of twenty -five (25) feet. Such lighting facilities shall be shielded from neighboring residential land uses. The proposed change to the Policy 5.2.3 is as follows: Policy 5.2.3: [revised text, page 121 Recognizing the existing residential nature of the land uses surrounding the planned 1 -75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no further commercial zoning for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. No new commercial uses shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above - defined segment. This policy shall not apply to that exi6tiRg PGFt 9 the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. III. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner is requesting the approval to expand the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict by approximately 11.6± acres, to allow up to 115,000 square feet of intermediate commercial and general office uses and allow residential uses at 15 dwelling units per acre. IV. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Existing Conditions: The subject request includes 5 parcels in Unit 30, Golden Gate Estates: • Tract 112 is approximately 6.83 acres and undeveloped; zoned PUD (Colonnades at Santa Barbara Commercial Planned Unit Development) with an approval for up to 35,000 square feet of office development, with a Corridor Management Overlay (CMO); and designated Agenda Item 4E - Estates - Mixed Use District, Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map. • Tracts 98 and 111 are approximately 11.6± acres and developed with four single - family homes; zoned E, Estates, with a CMO on a portion of Tract 98; and designated Residential Estates Subdistrict on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Developed, single family residences; zoned E, Estates; and designated Residential Estates Subdistrict on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map. South: Across Golden Gate Parkway, developed, single family residences and a Provisional Use for a church; zoned E, Estates, with a CMO; and designated Residential Estates Subdistrict on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map. West: Developed, single family residence; zoned E, Estates, with a CMO; and designated Residential Estates Subdistrict on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map. East: Across Santa Barbara Boulevard, developed, shopping center, zoned C -4, designated Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict; and residential multi - family units, zoned RMF -6 and RMF -12, Residential Multi- family (6 and 12 units /acre), and designated Urban - Mixed Use District, Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict, V. STAFF ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan Amendment data and analysis requirement: Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements" Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue... the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and analysis for the applicant, although it is staff's responsibility to identify any shortcomings in the data and analyses during the consistency review process and to request additional information that is deemed essential in the review of the submitted request for a plan amendment. Any outstanding deficiencies with respect to data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the Agenda Item 4E responsibility of the applicant. A detailed synopsis of the adequacy of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment is set forth with specificity below. Background and Considerations: • A Comprehensive Plan Amendment was approved on a portion of the subject site in 2001, as previously noted. Golden Gate Area Master Plan — Locational criteria limiting commercial and conditional use development in the Estates designation were established with the adoption of the GGAMP in the GMP in 1991: GGAMP — 1991 Commercial development was limited to Estates Neighborhood Centers, site - specific commercial subdistricts, and existing commercially zoned lands. Conditional use development, except essential services, was limited to Estates Neighborhood Centers, inf ill development on Golden Gate Parkway and on the west side of C.R. 951, and transitional areas — adjacent to certain non - residential uses. GGAMP — Present • Commercial development is limited to Neighborhood Centers, site - specific commercial subdistricts, and existing commercially zoned properties. • Conditional use development, except essential services and model homes, is limited to Estates Neighborhood Centers, infill development on the west side of C.R. 951 and transitional areas — adjacent to certain non - residential uses or adjacent to Neighborhood Centers, and two site - specific locations — one on the west side of C.R. 951 and one on the south side of Golden Gate Parkway. • 1 -75 Interchange and surrounding land uses: Resulting from the State's approval to fund and construct the 1 -75 Interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Resolution 2001 -56 establishing an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to provide recommendations on the appearance and landscaping of the interchange. The Committee was specifically tasked with creating an "overlay" district for the interchange to, minimize impacts to property owners, preserve the residential character of the area, and establish landscaping provisions consistent with creating a "gateway' into Naples and Golden Gate. • GGAMP Re -study Committee - GGAMP Policy 5.2.3 and revisions to the Estates, Conditional Uses Subdistrict: The GGAMP Re -study Committee was formed, in part, to study the land use needs of the Golden Gate Community, such as commercial, community facility and institutional uses. County staff worked with the Committee to identify appropriate areas to locate new commercial development and conditional uses within the Estates and Golden Gate City. Committee recommendations to the BCC included added provisions for conditional use Agenda Item 4E development, expansion and creation of Neighborhood Centers within the Estates, and the expansion and creation of commercial /mixed -use subdistricts within Golden Gate City. The Re -study Committee also identified areas that were inappropriate for new commercial and conditional use development. One such area identified by the Committee was the Golden Gate Parkway corridor, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. In 2003, the Re -study Committee met with "I -75 /Golden Gate Parkway' Ad hoc Committee members to discuss desired land uses for the area surrounding the interchange. As a result, the Re -study Committee recommended to the BCC provisions that would prohibit new commercial and conditional use development along Golden Gate Parkway in the Estates. Committee recommendations for expanded commercial and conditional use opportunities and the restriction of these uses in certain areas governed by the Master Plan were adopted by the BCC in 2003 and 2004, as part of the Phased Re -study Amendments to the GGAMP. • Justification for the proposed amendment, as provided by the applicant/agent (refer to Exhibit V.D.5 and Market Conditions Study): Essentially the petitioner is stating the proposed amendment should be granted because: 1) the character of the area has changed due to future roadway expansion of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard to 6- lanes; 2) the four quadrants surrounding the intersection are presently designated or developed with non - residential uses — low residential development is not compatible in and around the intersection; and 3) there is a demand for commercial at this location. The roadways surrounding the subject project are expected to be expanded in the future, however, the impacts to Estates — Residential properties may be minimal given the size and depth of the residential tracts, existing buffering, and placement of structures. The four quadrants at the intersection of the Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard are zoned or designated for non - residential development. The northeast quadrant is designated Urban; zoned C -4, general commercial; and is developed with a shopping center, consisting of neighborhood commercial uses. The southeast quadrant is designated Urban — Golden Gate Parkway Professional Office Subdistrict - limited to office development; and is undeveloped. The southwest quadrant is designated Estates; zoned E, Estates; and is developed with a church and private school with related facilities. The northeast quadrant (the 6.8 -acre parcel that is part of this petition) is designated Estates Mixed Use District, Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict; zoned CPUD, Commercial Planned Unit Development, allowing office uses only; and is undeveloped. The designations and zoning at and around the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard simply identifies existing approvals and future development patterns, which are predominantly low intensity uses /development. This acknowledgement of non - residential uses at the intersection does not demonstrate the need to expand the subject subdistrict or allow higher intensity development as proposed at the subject location. Agenda Item 4E • Commercial Demand Analysis: The commercial data and analysis submitted by the petitioner in support of the proposed amendment includes the Golden Gate Area Commercial Land Use Demand Study and a Market Conditions Study, prepared by Fraser and Mohlke Associates, Inc. • The Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict is located in Study Area 1 of the Golden Gate Area Commercial Land Use Demand Report. Table 4, Existing Commercial Acreage and Forecast Requirements, noted that in 2001, approximately 233 acres of commercial zoning existed. Staff notes that the 2005 projected demand for commercial uses in the study area was 208.18 acres, which represented a projected surplus of 25.06 acres. By the year 2010, the projected demand for commercial uses in the study area will be 242.9± acres, which represents a projected deficit of 9.71 acres. The referenced Commercial Land Use Demand Report does not include or consider additional commercial inventory resulting from the future conversion of residential uses to commercial uses in the expanded Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict (22± acres) and the Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict (52± acres). Both Subdistricts allow and encourage the types of commercial uses proposed by the subject request and are proximate to the subject site — across from the subject site on Santa Barbara Boulevard and along Golden Gate Parkway in Golden Gate City approximately one mile to the east. • The Market Conditions Study submitted with this application concludes "the subject site is well located to serve the goods and service needs of the surrounding residential communities and local businesses within convenient travel distances to the center." However, there is no clear indication in the Study that existing commercial development and future development within existing commercial subdistricts, proximate to the subject site and within the Trade Area, will not be adequate to meet the immediate and future commercial demands of the surrounding area. The Study appears to establish the subject site's viability as a commercial center rather than confirming commercial demand. VI. Environmental Impacts: The environmental report prepared by Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc. and submitted with this petition, dated February 2004 and revised in June 2006, indicates the following: • The subject site consists of residential, pine flatwoods, Brazillian Pepper, drained Cypress wetlands, and disturbed lands. Vegetation on site includes slash pine (Pinus elliottii), cypress trees (Taxodium distichum), Dahoon holly, and cabbage palms (Saba) palmetto). The properties contain hydric and non - hydric soils, but no hydrology was present. • The subject site does not exhibit wetland characteristics. No hydrologic indicators were present onsite. • The listed species survey conducted concluded that there were no signs of protected species on site or nest -like structures or tree cavities. Additionally, no signs of Big Cypress fox squirrel and gopher tortoise were documented utilizing or inhabiting the site. Agenda Item 4E Environmental Specialists with the Collier County Environmental Services Dept. reviewed the environmental report and provided the following comments: • No special environmental concerns are associated with the establishment of the Subdistrict on the proposed site. • The site will be required to retain the required amount of native vegetation in accordance with Policy 6.1.1 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. Historical and Archeological Impacts: The Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded cultural resources in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. Additionally, because of the project location and/or nature it is unlikely that any such [historic or archaeological] sites will be affected. The Florida Department of State is of the opinion that the proposed project will have no effect on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. VII.Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Analysis and Impacts: • Traffic Capacity: The subject acreage is directly adjacent to the segment of Golden Gate Parkway identified in the 2006 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) from 1 -75 to Santa Barbara, as having an adopted Minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standard of "E" In 2006, the peak hour capacity of the facility (with 6- lanes) was rated at 3,730 with a current volume of 1,843, yielding an operating LOS of "C." The subject acreage is also adjacent to the segment of Santa Barbara identified in the 2006 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) from Golden Gate Parkway to Green Boulevard, as having an adopted Minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standard of "E" In 2006, the peak hour capacity of the facility was rated at 1,930 with a current volume of 1,561, yielding an operating LOS of "D." • Traffic Impacts and Circulation Analysis: The four single - family homes located within the Subdistrict's proposed expansion area generate approximately four p.m. trips on the adjacent roadways. Conversely, assuming the development of: 1) 50,000 square foot medical office use, the ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates that approximately 165 peak hour trips would be generated for a LU# 720 Medical Office; 2) 65,000 sq. ft. shopping center use, the ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates that approximately 471 peak hour trips would be generated for a LU# 820 Shopping Center; and, 3) a 270 residential condominium use, the ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates that approximately 136 peak hour trips would be generated for a LU# 230. Access is proposed on Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. According to the petitioner, assuming the proposed trip distribution in Table 2 of the TIS, the resulting traffic impact of the additional floor area and residential uses described above would not significantly impact the surrounding roadways. • Consistency with the GMP: All impacted links identified in the TIS are only one link in each direction. If the applicant chooses to go link by link, the segment of Santa Barbara Boulevard north of Golden Gate Parkway (from Golden Gate Parkway to Green Boulevard) is projected to fail within the five -year Agenda Item 4E consistency determination and is currently not programmed to be widened within that time frame. If the applicant chooses to follow the TCMA [Transportation Concurrency Management Area] requirements, the end result is the same due to the removal of projects from the five year work program that are needed to keep the TCMA working at and adequate levels (85% of the links operating at an acceptable LOS). The project is not consistent with Policies 5.1 and 5.2 of the Transportation Element and Policy 1.1.2 of the Capital Improvements Element. [Comments provided by Transportation staff] Additionally, a commitment was made by the County to the Florida Department of Transportation in consideration of the approval and construction of the 1 -75 Interchange to keep the Golden Gate Parkway corridor "green" and not allow the proliferation of commercial and conditional uses. The project is not consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan that prohibit new commercial development along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. VIII. Public Facilities Impacts: Water and Wastewater: The subject project will be served by Florida Government Utility Authority. The anticipated demand for potable water and wastewater for the project is 29,000 gallons per day. (Staff informed the former agent that the subject project is located in the FGUA boundaries. The agent contacted the FGUA for a letter of availability, but the petitioner failed to provide a response from FGUA or change the exhibits in the final version of the submittal — which erroneously lists the County as the utility provider.) • Solid Waste: The service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The 2005 AUIR identifies that the County has sufficient landfill capacity up to the year 2027 for the required lined cell capacity. The project is projected to commence development by 2008 with anticipated buildout in 2010. • Drainage: The Subdistrict is located in Flood Zone X. Future development is expected to comply with the SFWMD and /or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of storm water events by both on -site and off -site improvements. • Parks and Recreational Facilities: No adverse impact to park facilities is expected as a result of this project. Available inventory as of 9/30/05 as identified in the 2005 AUIR is 993.9 acres. • Schools: The number of students generated from the proposed residential development is not expected to adversely impact the level of service for school facilities. Golden Gate Terrace Elementary, Golden Gate Middle School, and Golden Gate High School have available capacity to serve the project. • EMS, Fire, Police and County Jail: The subject project is located within the Golden Gate Fire District. The nearest fire station and EMS services and sheriff's substation are located on Golden Gate Parkway, approximately one mile east of the project site. The expansion of the commercial subdistrict with the proposed residential units is anticipated to have minimal impacts on these safety services and jail facilities. 10 Agenda Item 4E IX. Appropriateness of Change: The Golden Gate Estates community continues to experience rapid growth much like the Coastal Urban designated areas in Collier County. With increased population comes the need /demand to construct and expand roadways to move traffic, provide infrastructure to accommodate new residential units, and provide commercial, community facilities and institutional opportunities, etc. to serve the expanding population. Increasingly, Estates - designated properties located west of Collier Boulevard along collector and arterial roadways are being targeted for urban type development — higher densities, commercial services, community and institutional facilities, etc. In recent years, the County has experienced an influx in the number of Growth Management Plan Amendment requests to change the designation of properties from Estates Residential Subdistrict to site - specific commercial subdistricts. As the County continues to grow, local government must be responsive to the community's needs while balancing the undesired impacts caused by growth. As an example, the 1 -75 Interchange at Golden Gate Parkway was, in part, approved and is being constructed to alleviate traffic congestion at other interchanges in the County. The resulting impacts from the approval - noise, increased traffic volumes, right -of -way acquisition, and potential commercialization of Golden Gate Parkway - was realized immediately by surrounding residents. Elected officials responded by establishing a committee to provide recommendations on the appearance and landscaping of the interchange with the intent of preserving the residential character of the area and minimizing impacts to property owners. Additionally, county staff worked with the community via the GGAMP Re -study Committee to recommend provisions be added to the Plan to prohibit the approval of any new commercial zoning and conditional uses along the Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The Board of County Commissioners approved these prohibitions, in 2004. Although these prohibitive provisions exist in the GGAMP, staff acknowledges it would be appropriate to consider any changes in conditions that have occurred since 2004 that would warrant a modification of, or exception to, Policy 5.2.3 and /or the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the Estates — Mixed Use District. However, staff is unaware of any such changed conditions. At the time of adoption of these provisions, plans for the future 6- laning of Golden Gate Parkway, the future 6- laning of Livingston Road, and construction of the 1 -75 interchange were all known. X. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES: The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held on February 13, 2007, after the applicant/agent duly noticed and advertised the meeting, as required by the Collier County Land Development Code. Approximately 23 people attended the NIM, held at the Golden Gate Community Center, located at 4701 Golden Gate Parkway. • The following is a synopsis of the meeting: • The county planner gave a brief overview of the GMPA process and then the agent and applicant addressed the following comments and questions: ra Agenda Item 4E • A property owner said, "We desperately need Affordable/Workforce housing in Collier County." Another neighbor living on Painted Leaf Lane expressed concerns over parking lot noise. Mr. Zannos Grekos (agent/owner) states, "My plan does not include a rental community" and made no comment on "workforce" units. He went on to say (through means of a visual conceptual site plan), "The plan is for a retail /commercial strip, medical and /or law offices, 115,000 square feet of commercial: C -1, C -2 and C -3 uses with 2- stories over parking. • Agent/applicant addressed a density related question: "Up to 15 residential units per acre (270 units); condominiums, if GMPA is approved; we're planning 7 buildings with 12 units per building." • Agent/applicant addressed a question regarding Gas Station use: Mr. Grekos replied, 'We're not looking to put in a gas station here, our intentions are not to put a gas station [we're] looking to add value to the property." • Agent/applicant addressed a question regarding other development examples completed by his company: Mr. Grekos replied, "Colonnades on Bonita Beach Road." • Agent/applicant addressed a question regarding buffering: North - 50 ft. green area with a 35 ft. wide buffer along western and northern boundary. • Agent/applicant addressed the following questions regarding traffic impacts: 1) traffic volumes traveling east and signalization; and median cut at church at Painted Leaf. • Agent/applicant addressed a question regarding project development: Mr. Grekos stated, "The northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara improvements and the development's retail will be near the Golden Gate and Santa Barbara frontages with residential at the rear of the site." [Synopsis prepared by L. Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator and modified by M. Mosca, Principal Planner] FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • The proposed subdistrict is inconsistent with Policy 5.2.3 of the GGAMP, which prohibits new commercial zoning on properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. • The application and support documentation for the proposed amendment does not address changed conditions that would justify or support an exception or change to the adopted Policy in the GGAMP. • The requisite data and analysis necessary to support the proposed change from Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict to the requested commercial subdistrict was not provided, as required by Rule 9J - 5 F.A.C. • It is asserted in the amendment application that the future expansion of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway to 6 -lanes will change the character of the existing commercially zoned parcel and surrounding properties (Tracts 98 & 111) proposed for inclusion in the commercial subdistrict. However, the petition does not address the specific changes or impacts to these properties, except to mention that traffic volumes are expected to increase on the adjacent roadways. Further, after review of aerial photography submitted with the petition, suggested traffic impacts to Tracts 98 and 111 are not obvious given the substantial buffering and the placement of structures on site. 12 Agenda Item 4E • The requested (high) density of 15 units /acre (270 units) is consistent with urban style development and is an extreme departure from the low densities presently allowed in the Estates designation - one residential unit per 2 '/4 acres or legal lot of record. No supporting data and analysis has been provided to demonstrate a need for the increased residential density or to demonstrate its appropriateness at this location, such as a compatibility study, which would identify the impacts of the proposed project on the surrounding area. • The commercial analysis submitted does not demonstrate the need for additional retail and /or office uses at this location. The analysis does not account for the conversion of residential uses to commercial uses in the newly established Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict or the expanded Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict in the GGAMP. • If this project is approved, adjacent sites would become eligible for conditional uses. Despite the existence of Policy 5.2.3 in the GGAMP, it is important to note that the approval of this petition may provide the impetus for additional requests for commercial, either on abutting sites to the west, across Golden Gate Parkway at the southwest quadrant of the Golden Gate Parkway /Santa Barbara Boulevard intersection, or both. [Staff has received inquiries concerning a possible re- designation of the Estates zoned and designated tract, located in the southwest corner at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway.] XII. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's office. XIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP- 2005 -5 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to not transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. However, should the CCPC choose to recommend transmittal, staff recommends the following revisions to the proposed subdistrict (single underline text is added, as proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, as proposed by staff; double text is deleted, as proposed by staff): 7. Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict This subdistrict consists of two infill areas. The two areas are located at the northwest corner of Collier Boulevard and Green Boulevard and at the northwest corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Due to the existing zoning and land use pattern in proximity to the Estates Commercial In -fill Subdistrict (see Map 5) and the need to ensure adequate development standards to buffer adjacent land uses, commercial uses shall be permitted under the following criteria: a) Commercial uses shall be limited to: • Low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and intermediate commercial uses, in order to provide for small scale shopping and personal needs, and • Intermediate commercial to provide for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar to C -1, C -2, or C -3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land a Development Code (Ordinance 91 -102), adopted October 30, 1991. b) Rezones shall be encouraged in the form of a Planned Unit Development (there shall be no minimum acreage requirement for PUD rezones except for the requirement that all 13 Agenda Item 4E requests for rezoning must be at least forty thousand (40,000) square feet in area unless the proposed rezone is an extension of an existing zoning district consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan). c) Projects within this Subdistrict shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with adjoining commercial developments when appropriate. d) Driveways and curb cuts for projects within this Subdistrict shall be consolidated with adjoining commercial developments. e) Access to projects shall not be permitted from Collier Boulevard. f) Any project located within this subdistrict at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, less and except an easement for Santa Barbara Boulevard right -of -way, shall be subject to the following additional development restrictions: 1. The site shall be limited to thirty five one hundred and fifteen thousand (35115,000) square feet of commercial building area. 2. Land uses shall be restricted to er4y and mixed use residential projects. 3. All principal structures shall be required to have a minimum setback of ene #eadred (1004 fifty 50 feet from the project's northern boundary. 4. The northern fifty 50 feet of the site shall be a green area (open space area). It shall be utilized for only water management facilities, landscape buffers, and similar uses. 5. The site shall have an outdoor pedestrian friendly patio(s), that total at least Wofifteen hundred (1,500) square feet in area and incorporate a minimum of: benches or seating areas for at least Ows"s (4 2) irty -six (361 persons, and vegetative shading, and a waterfall or water feature of at least 0% three hundred (448 a04) square feet in area, and brick pavers. 6. A twenty -five (25) foot wide landscaped strip shall be provided along the entire frontage of both Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 7. A minimum buffer of thirty -five (35) feet in width shall be provided along the project's western and northern boundary A minimum buffer of fifty (50) feet in width shall be provided along the western sixty (60) percent of the project's northern boundary. Where feasible, existing native vegetation shall be retained within these buffers along the project's western and northern boundaries. These buffers shall be supplemented with Oak or Mahogany trees planted a maximum of twenty (20) feet apart in a staggered manner; and a seven (7) foot wall, fence, or hedge that will, within two (2) years of planting, grow to a minimum height of seven (7) feet and be a minimum of ninety -five (95) percent opaque. 14 Agenda Item 4E 8. All buildings shall have tile or metal roofs, or decorative parapet walls above the roofline, and buildings shall be finished in light subdued colors except for decorative trim. 9. Building heights shall be limited to one (-1) story three (3)- stories and a maximum of thirty -five (35) feet. 10. All lighting facilities shall be architecturally designed, and limited to a height of twenty -five (25) feet , shielded from neighboring residential land uses and shall comply with Policy 5.1.1 of this Element. 15 PREPARED BY: DATE: Z- / -7 -off �HE E MOSC. , PRINCIPAL PLANNER OMPREHEN LANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: IwL - W, DATE: DAVID WEEKS, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: i6VL- RANDALL COHEN, AICP, DIRECTOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: Agenda Item 4E DATE: 2,2-c3- v -) I�ARY�C c.. )I DATE: Z - ?-a y MJRIE M. STUDENT -STIR ING- ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: S DATE: eZd 0 J H K. SCHMITT, ADMINISTRATOR UNITY DEVELOPMENT & N IRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN Petition No: CP- 2005 -5 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007 CCPC Meeting Note: This petition has been advertised for the June 4, 2007, BCC Meeting. Agenda Item 4F 4Z7 L; e'-r coz4ip ty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: March 5, 2007 RE: PETITION CP- 2005 -6, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] AGENT /APPLICANTS Agent: Richard Yovanovich Goodlette, Coleman, and Johnson, P.A. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Applicants /: Lisa Merritt, Chair Owners The David Lawrence Foundation for Mental Health, Inc. 6075 Golden Gate Parkway _ Naples, FL 34116 and Paul Dykes, Len Coley, and Paul Bellofutto, Trustees Parkway Community Church of God 5975 Golden Gate Parkway Naples, FL 34116 1. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, containing 16.3± acres, is located in Golden Gate Estates on the north side of Golden Gate Parkway, between the 1 -75 Interchange and Santa Barbara Boulevard, Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, and is located within the Golden Gate Planning Community. �I TM - dP E T I � iiU 01 I II L � III i a d II li l.." _ GOLDEN GATE PPk(N'PY II q I N � Agenda Item 4F II. REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to amend the Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) text and Future Land Use Map by: Amending Policy 1.1.2 of the Estates - Mixed Use District to add the Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict; 2. Amending the Estates - Mixed Use District, Conditional Uses Subdistrict, Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions section, to allow the subject request - expansion of the existing conditional uses and new development of institutional and related uses on the adjacent five (5) acre tract, east of the existing conditional uses; 3. Amending the Estates — Mixed Use District to add the proposed Subdistrict; and 4. Creating a new Future Land Use Map series map depicting this new Subdistrict, amending the Future Land Use Map to add this new Subdistrict. The proposed change to Policy 1. 1.2 and the proposed Subdistrict text is as follows: Policy 1.1.2: The ESTATES Future Land Use Designation shall include Future Land Use District and Subdistricts for: ESTATES - MIXED USE DISTRICT h. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict [new text, page 5] 2. ESTATES DESIGNATION a. Estates — Mixed Use District 8. Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict [new text, page 45] This Subdistrict is specific to Tracts 43, 50, 59, and 66 of Golden Gate Estates Unit 30 and Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict is to provide for the continued operation of well - planned access points to ensure safe and convenient access onto Golden Gate Parkway. The following institutional uses are permitted through the conditional use process within the Subdistrict: a. Churches and other places of worship. b. Group care facilities (Categories I and II). c. Nursing homes and assisted living facilities. d. Essential services as set forth in LDC Section 2.01.03. e. Private Schools. f. Day care centers. Agenda Item 4F district. a. Libraries b. Government offices. c. Medical offices associated with group care facilities. d. Civic and cultural facilities. The proposed change to the Estates — Mixed Use District, Conditional Uses Subdistrict, Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provision section is as follows; 5) Conditional Uses Subdistrict b) Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions: [revised text, page 42] • Recognizing the existing residential nature of the land uses surrounding the planned 1 -75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, there shall be no further conditional uses for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard except as permitted within the Golden Gate Parkway Institutional Subdistrict. Further, no properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above - defined segment shall be approved for conditional uses. This provision shall not be construed to affect the area described in Paragraph a), above. Ill. PURPOSEIDESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioners are requesting approval to expand the existing conditional uses — mental health facility and church — and to develop new institutional uses and related uses on the adjacent 5± acre tract (Tract 66, Unit 30, GGE), east of the existing conditional uses. IV. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Existing Conditions: The proposal consists of four tracts; zoned E, Estates, with a Corridor Management Overlay (CMO), and designated Estates - Residential Subdistrict on the GGAMP Future Land Use Map. • Tracts 43 & 50 are developed with a Conditional Use for the David Lawrence Center. • Tract 59 is developed with a Conditional Use for the Parkway Community Church of God. • Tract 66 is undeveloped and located east of the approved Conditional Uses. • The project site is located on Golden Gate Parkway, an arterial roadway. • Two access drives are provided for each facility onto Golden Gate Parkway. Surrounding Land Uses: • North: Developed, single - family homes; zoned E, Estates; and designated Estates — Residential Subdistrict • South: Across Golden Gate Parkway, developed, single - family homes and a church; zoned E, Estates; and designated Estates — Residential Subdistrict East: Undeveloped; zoned E, Estates; and designated Estates — Residential Subdistrict Agenda Item 4F • West: Undeveloped; zoned E, Estates; and designated Estates — Residential Subdistrict V. STAFF ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan Amendment data and analysis requirement: Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements." Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue... the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and analysis for the applicant, although it is staff's responsibility to identify any shortcomings in the data and analyses during the consistency review process and to request additional information that is deemed essential in the review of the submitted request for a plan amendment. Any outstanding deficiencies with respect to data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the responsibility of the applicant. A detailed synopsis of the adequacy of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment is set forth with specificity below. Background and Considerations: • Existing Provisional Use (PU) /Conditional Use (CU) approvals for the David Lawrence facility and Parkway Community Church of God : The David Lawrence Center has been operating in Collier County since 1969, according to the agent. The Center's present location along Golden Gate Parkway was approved by Provisional Use in 1977. Subsequent provisional /conditional use approvals were granted in 1985, 1986, and 1998 to allow for additional uses and facility expansion onto adjacent Estates designated properties. The Parkway Community Church of God was approved by Provisional Use in 1984. • Number of PU /CUs on the Parkway from Livingston Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard: There are approximately 15 active provisional /conditional uses along the Parkway, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Approximately one -third of the approved conditional uses are churches and the remaining two - thirds are community facility uses, Agenda Item 4F such as fraternal organizations, Bridge club, and daycare /school facilities. Additionally there are two non - conforming use changes, a bingo hall and a physical fitness center. • Golden Gate Area Master Plan — Locational criteria limiting commercial and conditional use development in the Estates designation were established with the adoption of the GGAMP in the GMP in 1991: GGAMP — 1991 • Commercial development was limited to Estates Neighborhood Centers, site - specific commercial subdistricts, and existing commercially zoned lands. • Conditional use development, except essential services, was limited to Estates Neighborhood Centers, infill development on Golden Gate Parkway and on the west side of C.R. 951, and transitional areas — adjacent to certain non - residential uses. GGAMP — Present Commercial development is limited to Neighborhood Centers, site - specific commercial subdistricts, and existing commercially zoned properties. • Conditional use development, except essential services, is limited to Estates Neighborhood Centers, infill development on the west side of C.R. 951, transitional areas — adjacent to certain non - residential uses or adjacent to Neighborhood Centers, and two site specific locations — one on the west side of C.R. 951 and one on the south side of Golden Gate Parkway. • 1 -75 Interchange and surrounding land uses: Resulting from the State's approval to fund and construct the 1 -75 Interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) approved Resolution 2001 -56 establishing an Ad Hoc Advisory Committee to provide recommendations on the appearance and landscaping of the interchange. The Committee was specifically tasked with creating an 'overlay' district for the interchange to: 1) minimize impacts to property owners; 2) preserve the residential character of the area; and 3) establish landscaping provisions consistent with creating a "gateway" into Naples and Golden Gate. GGAMP Re -study Committee - GGAMP Policy 5.2.3 and revisions to the Estates, Conditional Uses Subdistrict: The GGAMP Re -study Committee was formed, in part, to study the land use needs of the Golden Gate Community, such as commercial, community facility and institutional uses. County staff worked with the Committee to identify appropriate areas to locate new commercial development and conditional uses within the Estates and Golden Gate City. Committee recommendations to the BCC included added provisions for conditional use development, expansion and creation of Neighborhood Centers within the Estates, and the expansion and creation of commercial /mixed -use subdistricts within Golden Gate City. The Re -study Committee also identified areas that were inappropriate for new commercial and conditional use development. One such area identified by the Committee was the Golden Gate Parkway corridor, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. In Agenda Item 4F 2003, the Re -study Committee met with "I -75 /Golden Gate Parkway" Ad hoc Committee members to discuss desired land uses for the area surrounding the interchange. As a result, the Re -study Committee recommended to the BCC provisions that would prohibit new commercial and conditional use development along Golden Gate Parkway in the Estates. Committee recommendations for expanded commercial and conditional use opportunities and the restriction of these uses in certain areas governed by the Master Plan were adopted by the BCC in 2003 and 2004, as part of the Phased Re -study Amendments to the GGAMP. Justification for the proposed amendment, as provided by the applicant/agent (refer to Exhibit O and pages 6 -8 of the application) : Justification for the proposed Plan change is limited to compatibility, site's proximate location to a multi -lane arterial roadway, and right -of -way acquisition by the State and Collier County for roadway construction and expansion. • Compatibility of proposed expansion of existing facilities and new uses with existing surrounding land uses: The agent states that the uses proposed and the expansion of the existing facilities are compatible with surrounding land uses, due to past Conditional Use approvals granted by Collier County. Additionally, the agent describes the proposed new uses as "active during the day, but are frequently non - intrusive in the evening and at night." • Proposed Subdistrict's proximity to Golden Gate Parkway, an arterial roadway: The agent states that the proposed new uses might benefit from better roadway access. • Right -of -way acquisition: The FDOT and Collier County acquired acreage from the subject properties for the Parkway expansion and the associated construction of the 1 -75 Interchange. The agent for the David Lawrence Center states that the lost acreage limits the development on the existing project acreage because the native vegetation retention standards and stormwater management requirements of the County's Land Development Code can not be met on site. The table below identifies the acreage acquired for roadway construction. G.G. Estates Unit 30 FDOT R.O.W. (acres) County R.O.W. Easement acres Total acres Tract 43 (David Lawrence Center) 1.02 0 1.02 Tract 50 (David Lawrence Center) 1.18 0 1,18 Tract 59 (Parkway Church) 0.21 0.27 0.48 Tract 66 (Vacant - owned by D.L. Center) 0 0.25 0.25 TOTAL 2.41 0.52 2.93 VI. Environmental Impacts: The environmental report submitted by Wilson Miller with this petition, dated April 2005 and supplemented in June 2006, indicates the following: Agenda Item 4F • The site contains pine flatwoods, with palmetto and graminoid understory and exotics. The soil found on site is listed as Pineda Fine Sand, Limestone Substratum. • The subject site does not exhibit wetland characteristics. There are no signs of standing water, no hydric soil indicators and no living cypress knees. • The listed species survey conducted on site concluded that there were no signs of Florida panther or black bear inhabiting or utilizing the site. Additionally, no signs of Big Cypress fox squirrel and gopher tortoise were documented utilizing or inhabiting the site. • Listed plant species observed on site were the common wild pine (Tillandsia fasciculata), twisted air plant (Tillandsia flexuosa), and giant wild pine (Tillandsia utriculata). These plants are listed by the Florida Dept. of Agriculture as endangered and are not listed by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission or the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Environmental Specialists with the Collier County Environmental Services reviewed the environmental report and provided the following comments: • The establishment of the Subdistrict will allow for the recovery of the native vegetation lost on site due to land acquisition for the 1 -75 Interchange and the roadway expansion of Golden Gate Parkway. • The potential establishment of a preserve in a larger and more contiguous area (on the adjacent 5 -acre site) furthers the Policies and Objectives of the Coastal Conservation and Management Element of the GMP. Historical and Archeological Impacts: • The Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded cultural resources in Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. However, the Florida Dept. of State, Division of Historical Resources, cautions property owners that sites may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, unrecorded historically important structures, or both. VII.Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Analysis and Impacts: • Traffic Capacity: The subject acreage is directly adjacent to the segment of Golden Gate Parkway identified in the 2006 Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) from 1 -75 to Santa Barbara, as having an adopted Minimum Level of Service (LOS) Standard of "E." In 2006, the peak hour capacity of the facility (with 6- lanes) was rated at 3,730 with a current volume of 1,843, yielding an operating LOS of "C" • Traffic Impacts and Circulation Analysis: Absent this request to change to the GMP, two single - family homes could be developed on the adjacent 5 -acre Tract (Tract 66). These homes would generate approximately two p.m. peak hour trips on the adjacent roadway. Conversely, assuming an approximate 20,000 square foot expansion of the David Lawrence Center, the ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates that approximately 35 p.m. peak hour trips would be generated for a LU# 715 Single Use Tenant - Bldg. Assuming a 60/40 split of the trips, in a west/east direction, the resulting p.m. peak hour traffic impact of the additional floor area described above would be considered de minimis, and would have no impact on the operational LOS of Golden Gate Parkway. Agenda Item 4F No special access management considerations are being requested as part of this Plan amendment. This amendment does not preclude the potential for cross - access agreements which would facilitate the sharing of existing or future access points, thus improving access and site circulation. Pursuant to the Land Development Code, access management issues shall be addressed at subsequent Site Development Plan application. • Consistency with the GMP: The project is not consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan that prohibit new conditional use development along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Additionally, a commitment was made by the County to the Florida Department of Transportation in consideration of the approval and construction of the 1 -75 Interchange to keep the Golden Gate Parkway corridor "green" and not allow the proliferation of commercial and conditional uses. VIII. Public Facilities Impacts: • Water and Wastewater: The existing and proposed expansion and proposed new uses will be served by Florida Government Utility Authority. The agent has requested an availability of service letter /determination from the provider, but no response from the Utility Authority has been received to date. • Solid Waste: The service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The 2005 AUIR identifies that the County has sufficient landfill capacity up to the year 2027 for the required lined cell capacity. The project is projected to be built -out in 2008. • Drainage: The Subdistrict is located in Flood Zone X. According to the agent, there are no known drainage problems associated with the subject properties and future development will comply with the SFWMD and /or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of storm water events by both on -site and off -site improvements. • Schools, Libraries, Parks and Recreational Facilities: The application does not propose an increase in residential density; therefore, no additional demand for services is anticipated. • EMS, Fire, Police and County Jail: The subject site is located within the East Naples Fire District. The nearest fire station, EMS services, and police substation are available on Golden Gate Parkway, approximately two miles to the east in Golden Gate City. Expansion of the existing uses and proposed new uses are anticipated to have minimal impacts on these safety services. IX. Appropriateness of Change: The Golden Gate Estates community continues to experience rapid growth much like the Coastal Urban designated areas in Collier County. With increased population comes the need /demand to construct and expand roadways to move traffic, provide infrastructure to accommodate new residential units, and provide commercial, community facilities and institutional opportunities, etc. to serve the expanding population. Increasingly, Estates - designated properties located west of Collier Boulevard along collector and arterial roadways are being targeted for urban type development — higher densities, commercial services, community and institutional facilities, etc. In recent years, the County has 9 Agenda Item 4F — experienced an influx in the number of Growth Management Plan Amendment requests to change the designation of properties from Estates Residential Subdistrict to site - specific commercial subdistricts. As the County continues to grow, local government must be responsive to the community's needs while balancing the undesired impacts caused by growth. As an example, the 1 -75 Interchange at Golden Gate Parkway was, in part, approved and is being constructed to alleviate traffic congestion at other interchanges in the County. The resulting impacts from the approval - noise, increased traffic volumes, right -of -way acquisition, and potential commercialization of Golden Gate Parkway - was realized immediately by surrounding residents. Elected officials responded by establishing a committee to provide recommendations on the appearance and landscaping of the interchange with the intent of preserving the residential character of the area and minimizing impacts to property owners. Additionally, county staff worked with the community via the GGAMP Re -study Committee to recommend provisions be added to the Plan to prohibit the approval of any new commercial zoning and conditional uses along the Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The Board of County Commissioners approved these prohibitions, in 2004. Although these prohibitive provisions exist in the GGAMP, staff acknowledges it would be appropriate to consider any changes in conditions that have occurred since 2004 that would warrant a modification of, or exception to, Policy 5.2.3 and /or the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the Estates — Mixed Use District. However, staff is unaware of any such changed conditions. At the time of adoption of these provisions, plans for the future 6- laning of Golden Gate Parkway, the future 6- laning of Livingston Road, and construction of the 1 -75 interchange were — all known. X. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES: The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held on November 13, 2006, after the applicant/agent duly noticed and advertised the meeting, as required by the Collier County Land Development Code. Approximately 35 people attended the NIM, held at the Parkway Community Church of God, located at 5975 Golden Gate Parkway. The following is a synopsis of the meeting: Mr. Rich Yovanovich (Agent) introduced the applicants and their representatives and gave an overview of the Growth Management Plan Amendment process. Mr. David Schimmel of the David Lawrence Center explained the request for the amendment is to continue operation of the existing facility, as well as, allow future improvements to the site. The existing Parkway Community Church of God is co- applicant and is requesting the same. Of those who spoke, many had questions relative to the property affected by the proposed amendment. The agent(s) explained the amendment only referred to the subject four, five -acre parcels. Mr. Schimmel presented a history of the David Lawrence Center and described an annual average patient activity within the facility. He also stated that the vacant parcel to the east of the facility may be used for water management, vegetation requirements, and/or more facilities in the future. He said that any additional building would have a 35 -foot height limitation, as required by the GGAMP. 7 Agenda Item 4F Neighboring properties owners stated that the construction of the 1 -75 overpass at G.G. Parkway has impacted their property and they had questions regarding property conversions to commercial zoning. Mr. David Weeks explained the Comprehensive Plan Amendment and rezoning process. No one spoke in opposition or in favor of the petition. [Synopsis prepared by L. Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator and modified by M. Mosca, Principal Planner] XI. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • The proposed subdistrict is not consistent with the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard Special Provisions section of the GGAMP, which prohibits new conditional uses on properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. • The application and support documentation for the proposed amendment does not address changed conditions that would justify or support an exception or change to the adopted Subdistrict in the GGAMP. • The requisite data and analysis necessary to support the proposed change from Estates — Mixed Use District, Residential Subdistrict to the requested institutional subdistrict was not provided, as required by Rule 9J - 5 F.A.C. • The data and analysis provided in support of the requested change was limited to compatibility findings associated with past Conditional Use approvals and the impediments limiting the expansion of existing facilities onsite. The data did not include a needs assessment or inventory of community facility or institutional uses in the immediate geographic area or on a countywide level. • According to the agent, onsite expansion opportunities for both the mental health facility and church are limited due to right -of -way acquisition by the County and FDOT for roadway improvements. Approximately 2.20 acres of the 10± acre David Lawrence site and .48 acres of the 5± acre Community Parkway church site were acquired. (It should be noted that the Amendment application indicates that SDP -AR- 2002 -2072, which provided for the expansion of the David Lawrence Center onsite, was not completed due to the Center's inability to provide the required native vegetation and stormwater management areas onsite.) XII. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's office. XIII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP- 2005 -6 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to not transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. However, if the CCPC should recommend transmittal, staff recommends the following: • Limit the development and uses on Tract 66 to stormwater management and preservation areas; 10 Agenda Item 4F Limit the development and uses on Tract 59 to church, church - related uses (e.g. church - operated school and/or day care), and other institutional uses of the same or less intensity as church use; and, Limit the development and uses on Tracts 43 and 50 to the existing David Lawrence Center use and to the amount of building expansion that could have occurred on those two tracts had 2.2 acres not been conveyed for right -of -way. PREPARED BY: DATE: IC LE MOSC CP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER MPREHENSI PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: 2 -20 -�7 DATE: DAVID WEEKS, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED V, RA DALL CO EN, AICP, DIRECTOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: MARJORIE M. STUDENT- STIRLING ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: Agenda Item 4F DATE: 2° 2c7— 07 DATE: Z ' Zd -07- UEPH K. SC'MITT, ADMINISTRATOR DATE: ,2 c0 0 _ MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & IRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN Petition No: CP- 2005 -6 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007 CCPC Meeting Note: This petition has been advertised for the June 4, 2007, BCC Meeting. Agenda Item 4G STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION UPA TED TO MARCH 28, 2007 TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MARCH 5, 2007 RE: PETITION NO. CP- 2006 -04, TRANSITIONAL CONDITIONAL USE EXCEPTION IN THE GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] AGENT /APPLICANT /OWNERS: Agent: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP O. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Applicant: Neil Bennett First Congregational Church of Naples, Inc. 5100 Tamiami Trail North Naples, FL, 34103 Owner: First Congregational Church of Naples, Inc. 5100 Tamiami Trail, Suite 138 Naples, FL, 34103 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property contains 2.6 acres more or less and is located on the south side of Immokalee Road, lying about 300 feet east of Oaks Boulevard, north of Autumn Oaks Lane, and west of Valewood Drive (extended). This property is generally situated at the northwest boundary of Golden Gate Estates, within the Urban Estates Planning Community in Section 29, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. (See Attachment "A ") -1- Agenda Item 4G REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to add language effectively accommodating a future Conditional Use petition to allow a transitional land use as it would otherwise be prohibited under the Estates — Mixed Use District, Conditional Uses Subdistrict. Though the petitioner is a church, it should be understood that, if this petition is approved, the subject property will be eligible for any Conditional Uses listed in the E, Estates zoning district. Overcoming this prohibition involves: 1) A site - specific exception to restrictions on Transitional Conditional Uses where directly adjacent to a non - residential use; and, 2) A site - specific exception to restrictions on same where adjacent to permitted essential services. And is proposed, as follows (text with single underline is added): Proposed Golden Gate Area Master Plan Text Amendment: [pages 42, 431 d) Transitional Conditional Uses: Conditional uses may be granted in Transitional Areas. A Transitional Area is defined as an area located between existing non - residential and residential areas. The purpose of this provision is to allow conditional uses in areas that are adjacent to existing non - residential uses and are therefore generally not appropriate for residential use. The conditional use will act as a buffer between non - residential and residential areas. The following criteria shall apply for Transitional Conditional Use requests: • Site shall be directly adjacent to a non - residential use (zoned or developed); • Site shall be 2.25 acres, or more in size or be at least 150 feet in width and shall not exceed 5 acres; • Conditional uses shall be located on the allowable acreage adjacent to the non - residential use except that a transitional conditional use may be requested on Tract 22, GGE Unit 97; • Site shall not be adjacent to a church or other place of worship, school, social or fraternal organization, child care center, convalescent home, hospice, rest home, home for the aged, adult foster home, children's home, rehabilitation centers; aAd • Site shall not be adjacent to parks or open space and recreational uses; • Site shall not be adjacent to permitted Essential Service, as identified in Section 2.6.9 of the Land Development Code, except for libraries and museums; except that a transitional conditional use may be requested on Tract 22, GGE Unit 97, and • Project shall provide adequate buffering from adjacent properties allowing residential uses. -2- Agenda Item 4G SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Existing Conditions: The subject property is currently zoned E, Estates, comprises 2.6 acres and contains a single - family residence. The current Future Land Use Designation is Estates - Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Planned Unit Development (PUD) - Residential and commercial land uses across Immokalee Road, in the Huntington and Quail II PUDs - Urban Residential Subdistrict designation on FLUM South: E, Estates - Autumn Oaks Lane; then developed & undeveloped residential lots - Residential Estates Subdistrict designation on FLUM East: E, Estates Developed & undeveloped residential lots _. Residential Estates Subdistrict designation on FLUM West: E, Estates - Permitted essential services (telephone switching station) and model home - Residential Estates Subdistrict designation on FLUM STAFF ANALYSIS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements." Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue... the Department will -3- Agenda Item 4G review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and analysis for the applicant, although it is staff's responsibility to identify any shortcomings in the data and analyses during the consistency review process and to request additional information that is deemed essential in the review of the submitted request for a plan amendment. Any outstanding deficiencies with respect to data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the responsibility of the applicant. A detailed synopsis of the adequacy of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment is set forth with specificity below. Environmental I moacts The environmental report submitted by Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc. with this application is dated December 2006. Environmental Specialists in the Environmental Services Department reviewed application materials and "find that it is consistent with the applicable GMP and LDC requirements. [The Environmental Services] department is not approving the location of the Preserve that is depicted on the Conceptual Site Plan ". Reviewers comment further, reminding the petitioner that "this [specific Preserve location] will be [formally] reviewed at either the Conditional Use or Site Development Plan stage ". The Conceptual Site Plan was withdrawn after the review was completed, and is not necessary until another consideration at a later date. Public Facilities Impact, Includina Traffic Impacts: This petition seeks to build a 6,000 square foot church with a seating capacity of 300. Construction is to commence in 2008, with completion expected during 2009. Information provided by the petitioner explained the impacts of developing the subject property with such a facility, as follows: With respect to Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer — no impacts, as the church facilities will continue to use the existing private water well and septic system. With respect to Stormwater Drainage — project is designed to comply with 25 -year, 3 -day storm routing requirements. No adverse impacts are anticipated for Solid Waste, and Community and Regional Park facilities. The church will generate fewer than 1,000 annual average daily trips, and fewer than 100 trip ends during weekday periods. These are not significant impacts on roadways. Cta Agenda Item 4G Paul Kwa, PE, PMP, Public Utilities Engineering Department Project Manager, reviewed CP- 2006-04 materials and replied with no further comments. Appropriateness of Chanoe: Generally, Conditional Uses (CUs) are permitted throughout the County on most residentially zoned land. As early as 1991, the residents of Golden Gate Estate expressed their concerns regarding the scattered approvals of non - residential conditional uses, with little or no discretionary criteria. The people in the Estates wanted County Planning policies and zoning provisions to provide a more appropriate amount of specificity and certainty as to where conditional uses could be expected and would be considered. They crafted GMP language which provided the certainty expected, with the adopted result being the Conditional Use provisions written into the Golden Gate Area Master Plan when it was adopted in 1991. These were subsequently revised in 2003 -2004 based upon recommendations of the GGAMP Restudy Committee, a BCC- appointed citizen committee. That Committee evaluated the areas encompassed by the GGAMP and recommended greater restrictions on conditional uses in some areas, and additional allowances for other areas, as reflected in the current GGAMP. The subject property was not identified as an area appropriate for Conditional Uses nor as an area in which there was a particular need for Conditional Uses. The "Conditional Uses Subdistrict' in the Estates — Mixed Use District within the GGAMP contains specific provisions for Essential Services CUs, CUs on Golden Gate Parkway and Collier Boulevard, Transitional CUs adjacent to Neighborhood Centers, Transitional CUs [as buffers between residential and certain non - residential uses], and, Special Exceptions to CU Locational Criteria [for certain excavation activities and temporary model homes]. For our present purposes, we will focus on the provisions for "Transitional Conditional Uses" — reduced to component statements — which state: "Conditional uses may be granted in Transitional Areas." Conditional Uses may not be granted to subject properties not in transitional areas; the subject property is not in such a transitional area. "A Transitional Area is defined as an area located between existing non - residential and residential areas." The subject property is not located between existing non - residential and residential areas. "The purpose of this provision is to allow conditional uses in areas that are adjacent to existing non - residential uses and are therefore generally not appropriate for residential use." The secondary purpose of this provision is not to allow conditional uses in areas that are not adjacent to existing non - residential uses and are therefore generally appropriate for residential use, as is the case for the subject property. 5- Agenda Item 4G "The conditional use will act as a buffer between non - residential and residential areas." The subject property cannot act as a buffer, as it is not located between existing non- residential and residential areas. Staff has an overall discomfort with the structure of the proposed text amendments. That is, The Transitional Conditional Uses provision is presently constructed as a list of criteria identifying what will and will not be considered a transitional conditional use. The criteria describe the types and variety of land uses allowed to locate next to different types and variety of land uses. The petition does not propose language which would increase, decrease, or redefine the types of land uses to be considered, or increase, decrease or redefine their variety. The petition does however, propose a single -site exception to these criteria. Moreover, the petition proposes its exceptions to these criteria because it cannot or would not otherwise meet them. A transitional conditional use is not permitted here. To approve it as a Conditional Use would be considered spot zoning. To approve the single -site exception could be considered spot planning. Staff would be far more comfortable with a proposal which is constructed in a manner similar to its parent provision — one which expands or contracts the types and variety of transitional conditional uses by criteria. In staff's opinion, approval of this amendment may result with other transitional land uses petitioning to develop on properties where otherwise prohibited, without demonstrating compatibility, appropriateness of location, or need. Approving this exception will impose unintended incompatibilities on surrounding properties. They may eventually need additional exceptions from the same provision(s) in order to regain compatibility. Neiahborhood Information Meetina SvnoDSIS The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F was conducted January 4, 2007, after the agent/applicant duly noticed and advertised the meeting. Approximately 20 people attended the NIM, held at the North Naples Baptist Church, 1811 Oakes Boulevard, and heard the following information: Petitioner's agent explained how their application for the Conditional Use will eventually follow approval of this Plan amendment. The subject property is a through lot - with frontage on roadways on both the north and south sides. Property owners have agreed to reserve at least a 45 foot wide right -of -way easement along the east edge of the subject property in order to connect Immokalee Road to Autumn Oaks Lane. This new street would be an extension of Valewood Drive from the north, across Immokalee Road, though not necessarily named as such. 22 Agenda Item 4G Audience members asked about access. It was explained that one access would lead onto Autumn Oaks Lane and one onto the (yet unnamed) side street. Petitioners have made a presentation to the local neighborhood group previously, and had agreed this new side street would not be a major transportation "corridor', but would be designed as a "residential street". Final details about these design elements have not been worked out with the County, but the design may be limited access in some manner. Southbound turning movements may be restricted at Immokalee Road. The new side street may be limited to northbound traffic. [Synopsis prepared by L Koehler, Public Information Coordinator, and C. Schmidt, Principal Planner] (INITIAL) FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The petitioner has not submitted data and analysis to support this amendment, as required by Rule 9J -5, F.A.C. — no inventory of eligible Conditional Use sites in Golden Gate Estates, nor any analysis of availability in the nearby Urban designated area. Because the Urban designation does not contain locational criteria for Conditional Uses, they are allowed anywhere in the Urban area. Further, Golden Gate Estates in this area only has frontage on Immokalee Road for one mile, and only along the south side. The question goes unanswered as to why it is necessary to seek this amendment at this location. No information demonstrates that suitable sites do not exist in the Urban designated area in this general vicinity. • The proposed uses will allow development generally compatible with uses on surrounding properties. • The subject property abuts one arterial road - Immokalee Road. • As a result of this amendment there are no significant impacts to public facilities, as defined in the CIE, with respect to Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater Drainage, Solid Waste, Community and Regional Parks facilities. • Approval of this petition may lead to other requests for non - transitional, non - residential uses, on nearby and similarly situated properties. • The applicant has not submitted data and analysis to demonstrate a need for this (or other) Conditional Use site (e.g. inventory of available Conditional Use sites in Golden Gate Estates), nor the appropriateness of this site (e.g. compatibility analysis, impact upon other properties to possibly seek similar exception to locational criteria). LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. 7- Agenda Item 4G ORIGINAL) STAFF_ RECOMMENDATION: That the CCPC forward Petition CP- 2006 -04 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community of Affairs. If the Planning Commission determines that a recommendation of approval is warranted, staff recommends further modifications to the proposed language, noted below in double strike - through /double underline format, as follows: d) Transitional Conditional Uses: Conditional uses may be granted in Transitional Areas. A Transitional Area is defined as an area located between existing non - residential and residential areas. The purpose of this provision is to allow conditional uses in areas that are adjacent to existing non - residential uses and are therefore generally not appropriate for residential use. The conditional use will act as a buffer between non - residential and residential areas. The following criteria shall apply for Transitional Conditional Use requests • Site shall be directly adjacent to a non - residential use (zoned or developed)• except for Tract 22 GGE Unit 97; • Site shall be 2.25 acres, or more in size or be at least 150 feet in width and shall not exceed 5 acres; • Conditional uses shall be located on the allowable acreage adjacent to the non - residential use, except that a transitional conditional use may be requested on Tract 22, GGE Unit 97; • Site shall not be adjacent to a church or other place of worship, school, social or fraternal organization, child care center, convalescent home, hospice, rest home, home for the aged, adult foster home, children's home, rehabilitation centers; aad • Site shall not be adjacent to parks or open space and recreational uses; • Site shall not be adjacent to permitted Essential Service, as identified in Section 2.6.9 of the Land Development Code, except for libraries and museums; except that a transitional conditional use may be requested on Tract 22 GGE Unit 97, and • Project shall provide adequate buffering from adjacent properties allowing residential uses. UPDATED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: On March 22, the Planning Commission continued their consideration of CP -06 -04 to a later date, providing the petitioner with additional time to submit data and analysis to support this amendment. This information as submitted was provided to Planning Commissioners and taken into consideration by staff. The data and analysis includes an inventory of sites investigated in Golden Gate Estates and the nearby Urban designated area suitable for church purposes. A letter of explanation, a refused offer to purchase another suitable property, accompanied the site inventory in an effort to satisfy the requirements of Rule 9J -5, F.A.C., demonstrating that suitable church sites do not exist in the Urban designated area in this general vicinity. Agenda Item 4G In their letter of explanation, the petitioner states that certain characteristics of the site and surrounding properties are "not conducive to low- intensity residential development". These characteristics include the widening of Immokalee Road to six lanes, reconfiguration of northbound Oakes Boulevard traffic, and reconfiguration of the Valewood Drive intersection with Immokalee Road involving construction of a new street on the subject property's east side. The resulting lot configuration with three road - fronting sides, along with a lot depth half that of many neighboring residential lots are evidence supporting the petitioner's statement. The petitioner also proposed revised GGAMP language, further restricting possible land uses on the subject property from all Golden Gate Area conditional uses to exclusively a place of worship. Staff maintains however that the subject property is not in a "transitional area ", and that GGAMP language for excepting this site from conditional use restrictions can be better structured. Staffs updated findings and conclusions are: • The proposed uses will allow development generally compatible with uses on surrounding properties. • The subject property abuts one arterial road - Immokalee Road. • As a result of this amendment there are no significant impacts to public facilities, as defined in the CIE, with respect to Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater Drainage, Solid Waste, Community and Regional Parks facilities. • Approval of this petition may lead to other requests for non - residential uses, on nearby and similarly situated properties. • The applicant has submitted data and analysis to demonstrate a need for, and the appropriateness of, this Conditional Use site. UPDATED STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the CCPC forward Petition CP- 2006 -04 to the BCC with a recommendation to transmit to the Florida Department of Community of Affairs, as revised by staff, and noted below in double strike - through /double underline format, as follows: d) Transitional Conditional Uses: Conditional uses may be granted in Transitional Areas. A Transitional Area is defined as an area located between existing non - residential and residential areas. The purpose of this provision is to allow conditional uses in areas that are adjacent to existing non- residential uses and are therefore generally not appropriate for residential use. The conditional use will act as a buffer between non - residential and residential areas. The following criteria shall apply for Transitional Conditional Use requests: _, • Site shall be directly adjacent to a non - residential use (zoned or developed)r Agenda Item 4G • Site shall be 2.25 acres, or more in size or beat least 150 feet in width and shall not exceed 5 acres; • Conditional uses shall be located on the allowable acreage adjacent to the non - residential use, • Site shall not be adjacent to a church or other place of worship, school, social or fraternal organization, child care center, convalescent home, hospice, rest home, home for the aged, adult foster home, children's home, rehabilitation centers; aad • Site shall not be adjacent to parks or open space and recreational uses; • Site shall not be adjacent to permitted Essential Service, as identified in Section 2.6.9 of the Land Development Code, except for libraries and museums; FRR�l 60 ,....,.a @A TF&W GGFm W and, • Project shall provide adequate buffering from adjacent properties allowing residential uses. e) Special Exceptions to Conditional Use Locational Criteria: 1. Temporary use (TU) permits for model homes, as defined in the Collier County Land Development Code, may be allowed anywhere within the Estates -Mixed Use District. Conditional use permits submitted for the purpose of extending the time period for use of the structure as a model home shall not be subject to the locational criteria of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict, and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates -Mixed Use District. Temporary Use permits for model homes shall have a duration of three (3) years from the date of approval. No subsequent issuance of a Conditional Use permit shall be for a duration exceeding two (2) years. The total time period for Temporary Use and Conditional Use permits together shall not exceed five (5) years. 2 Conditional Use permits for excavation, as provided for in the Estates zoning district, are not subject to the locational criteria for Conditional Uses and may be allowed anywhere within the Estates -Mixed Use District. I 10- Agenda Item 4G Prepared By: (I nW a tc Date: Lk nl- Corby L. S hmidt, Principal Planner Comprehe sive Planning /Department Reviewed By: r Date: 2 - ZO- 07 David C. Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By: Date: 2 — O , 0-7 Randall J. Co en, AICP, Director Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By: /per ins,. l.jalll� ' Date: 2 -20 —U�- MarjorjkjM. Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney Office of the Collier County Attorney Approved By: c� Date: �d d Jo ph K. Sc m tt, Administrator C munity Development and Environmental Services Division PETITION NO.: CP- 2006 -04 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007 CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 4, 2007 BCC Meeting, COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, Chairman Agenda Item 4H Co��ier Co-rrnty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT DATE: February 16, 2007 RE: PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -7, GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT AG ENT /APPLICANT /OWNER Agent: Robert J. Mulhere, AICP RWA, Inc. 6610 Willow Park Drive, Ste. 200 Naples, FL 34109 Applicant: Paul Haefcke, Managing Partner R & H Properties, LLC 2777 Olde Cypress Drive Naples, FL 34119 Owner: R & H Properties, LLC 2777 Olde Cypress Drive Naples, FL 34119 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, containing 10.47± acres more or less, is located at the northwest quadrant of Livingston and Pine Ridge Roads. The parcel lies within the North Naples Planning Community and is currently designated Urban, and falls within the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Urban Commercial District, Livingston/Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict. REQUESTED ACTION: This Petition seeks to amend the existing text to the Livingston /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, northwest quadrant, as follows: 3) Livingston /Pine Ridge Road Commercial Infill Subdistrict This Subdistict consists of two parcels; one parcel consists of 17.5 acres and is located at the southeast quadrant of Livingston Road, a collector roadway, and Pine Ridge Road, a minor arterial roadway. The second parcel consists of 10.47 acres and is located at the _ northwest quadrant of Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road. In addition to uses allowed in the Plan, the intent of the Livingston /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict is to provide shopping, personal services and employment for the surrounding residential areas within a convenient travel distance and to provide commercial services in an acceptable Agenda Item 4H manner along a new collector roadway. The Subdistrict is intended to be compatible with the neighboring commercial, public use and high density residential properties and will utilize well - planned access points to improve current and future traffic flows in the area. b. Northwest Quadrant The feasibility of interconnections to the adjacent properties to the North and West will be considered and, if deemed feasible, will be required during the rezoning of the subject property. This quadrant shall be limited to a maximum of 70.000 square feet of general and medical office uses, of which, up to 20,000 square feet may be retail uses. 40,000 square feet. Building height shall be limited to three stories with a 50- -foot maximum height. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner proposes to increase the building square footage from 40,000 s.f. to a maximum of 70,000 square feet, add retail uses, and limit retail uses to a maximum of 20,000 square feet of the 70,000 s.f. total. The balance of the building area (50,000 s.f.) will be limited to general and medical office uses. Building height remains unchanged. LIVINOSTON / PINE RIDGE COMMERCIAL INFILL DIBTRlcP COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA - - — - - - -� JI -- °a Subject �- Site CrTJ H � LEGEND .� B - - m wo xom ®SUBDISlR1CT Agenda Item 4H SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Existing Conditions: The subject property is presently developed with a retail "produce /nursery farm stand" operation. The property has been cleared of native vegetation and significant portions are planted with vegetables, flowers, and nursery stock. Approximately 6 acres of the site are encumbered by an FPL easement, within which the main transmission lines serving Collier County are located. The site is zoned A, Rural Agricultural and is designated on the Future Land Use Map as Livingston /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict. Surro ding Land Use: The subject property is surrounded by non - residential uses, as noted above, and is adjacent to two 6 -lane arterials, Pine Ridge and Livingston Roads. STAFF ANALYSIS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements." Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular Comp Plan Designations Zoning Land Use North Urban Mixed Use Community Community School of District, Urban Facility (CF) Naples Residential Subdistrict South Urban Mixed Use Related Pine Ridge Road & Multi - District, Urban Group PUD family housing Residential Subdistrict & development, and a 6.7t at South East Quadrant, acre FPL easement. Urban Commercial District, Livingston /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict East Estates Mixed Use Cambridge Vacant with construction District, Residential Square underway, and Single Estates Subdistrict PUD Family development to the east along Old Livingston Road West Urban Mixed Use A -Rural Naples Progressive District, Urban Agricultural, Gymnastics /Ballet -Dance Residential Subdistrict with CUs for School & Church Gym /School & Church The subject property is surrounded by non - residential uses, as noted above, and is adjacent to two 6 -lane arterials, Pine Ridge and Livingston Roads. STAFF ANALYSIS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements." Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular Agenda Item 4H subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue... the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and analysis for the applicant, although it is staff's responsibility to identify any shortcomings in the data and analyses during the consistency review process and to request additional information that is deemed essential in the review of the submitted request for a plan amendment. Any outstanding deficiencies with respect to data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the responsibility of the applicant. A detailed synopsis of the adequacy of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment is set forth with specificity below. Environmental Impacts: There are no environmental impacts on this property. The entire site was previously cleared for agricultural uses. No listed animal or plant species are known to inhabit the site. Traffic Capacitv/Traffic Circulation Analysis: The study submitted is dated April 14, 2005 and contains data that is inconsistent with existing background traffic and capacities. Additional analysis is required and recommended prior to final approval. Capacity is currently available on the Livingston Road segments and is anticipated to be available in the five year planning period. Capacity on Pine Ridge Road is limited now, but is anticipated to be available based on the assumption that the Golden Gate Parkway /1 -75 Interchange will reduce background volumes on Pine Ridge Road in the future. Understanding that this application is in the GMP amendment phase, consideration should be given that operational analysis will be required at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Livingston Roads as well as the first downstream U -turn locations. Any failing movements at the intersection or U -turn location will require mitigation in the form of improvements or a contribution towards the Intelligent Traffic Management System (ITMS). The application may also be subject to the Transportation Demand Management Strategies (TDMS) associated with the local Transportation Concurrency Management Area (TCMA). Table 5 of the submitted Traffic Study shows that Pine Ridge Road is overcapacity in the five year planning period but as stated in the comments above and as outlined on Page 7 of the submitted traffic report, we anticipate background traffic will be reduced by the 1 -75 /Golden Gate Parkway interchange. Access off of Pine Ridge Road is too close to the intersection and possibly a health, safety and welfare concern. The project will most likely be required to modify the access point or eliminate it all together. 4 Agenda Item 4H TC/TCA Conclusion: - The site appears to be consistent with roadway capacity that will be available in the five year planning period assuming that the Golden Gate Parkway /1 -75 interchange lowers the background traffic on Pine Ridge Road. Access to the parcel is limited on Livingston Road and not recommended on Pine Ridge Road. Transportation staff does not recommend additional intensity at this site with the limited access available to the property. Public Facilities Impact: The petitioner's public facilities Level of Service analysis demonstrated the project's water and sewer demands would not significantly impact the LOSS for potable water or sanitary sewer, nor drainage facilities (which must comply with LDC and SFWMD requirements for on -site retention and treatment prior to discharge), and finds no consistency issues regarding all other category A Public Facilities Solid Waste and Community and Regional Parks). The petitioner did not address LOSS impacts for Parks or Solid Waste with data and analysis. Staff notes that since this is a non - residential project there would be no impacts upon Parks facilities; and, it has been noted in other petition staff reports that there is adequate landfill capacity beyond 2020. Public Facilities staff reviewed this petition and provided the following comments: By allowing the increase in square footage to the subject site, it is consistent with the Public Facilities Element of the Growth Management Plan, and the property is lying within the Collier County Water /Sewer District (CCWSD). Appropriateness of change: Prior to the creation of the Livingston /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict, and as previous analysis has shown, the property is more suited for commercial development than residential development due to the existing FPL easement comprising of the western 6.7 acres of the 10.5± acre site. Further analysis has shown that the usable portion of the subject parcel ranges from 57 feet wide to a maximum of 167 feet in width and substantial buffering from Livingston Road and Pine Ridge Road would have been necessary to make a viable residential project, and being the property is surrounded by commercial and community facility uses and major roadways, the use of this site was determined better suited to commercial uses. The Livingston /Pine Ridge Commercial Infill Subdistrict retail commercial may not be compatible with the single - family home on the Estates zoning east of the subject site, however, the site borders Livingston Road (CR -881), and was recently completed to a six -lane divided highway. The commercial uses remain compatible with the existing community facility development to the north and west of the property. The increase in building square feet and addition of retail commercial uses may not be compatible with the multi - family development to the south, and single - family development to the east Oust north of Cambridge Square PUD along old Livingston Road and Livingston Lane). However, the sites are divided by Pine Ridge Road (CR -896), a six -lane divided highway, and the recently completed six -lane Livingston Road, which provides a more than adequate barrier between the subject properties. Commercial Demand Analysis: The 2003 Commercial Data utilized by the applicant for the Market Study within this petition was the only data available at the time of submittal therefore, staff is showing the current 2005 Commercial Inventory data, for comparison purposes only. E Agenda Item 4H Petitioner Utilizina 2003 Commerrial nata• Planning Community Total Acres Developed Acres Undeveloped Acres Developed So. Ft. North Naples 1,040.01 622.44 417.15 5,037,432 Central Naples 405.45 244.12 161.33 2,735,596 Urban Estates 450.86 98.34 352.52 541,353 Stab iitni> inn 9nn5 Cnmmcrrial nat.- Planning Community Total Acres Developed Acres Undev. Acres Developed So. Ft. North Naples 1,729.75 1.059.91 669.84 7,521,850 Central Naples 417.80 260.64 157.16 2,823,874 Urban Estates 606.14 248.09 358.05 1,031,652 Source: zuud and zuu5 commerciai inventory (based on Property Appraiser data) and current zoning maps. The petitioner prepared and submitted a market feasibility and demand analysis for the subject parcel, utilizing 2003 Commercial Inventory data. As defined in the petitioner's analysis, the subject's primary market area and analysis was determined to be within a two -mile radius from its location and the study focused on the projected future supply and demand of the trade area. Staff's comparison is taken from the 2005 Commercial Inventory data, which was not available prior to submission of this petition. The petitioner surveyed the existing supply and demand of retail space in the primary trade area. Their inventory included shopping centers, strip retail centers, stand alone buildings, etc, based upon 2003 data. The petitioner's analysis and staff's analysis of the trade area is summarized below for comparison: 2.0 -mile Pine Ridge Road lCR -AMI cnrridnr frnm Airnnrt- Pullinn Rnorl 1t'P_Q11 rn 1-7r- Standard Two Mile Trade Petitioner County Staff Area Square Feet 570,282 1,005, 084 Approved /Existing Retail Space in Non -PUD Commercial Zoning Square Feet 2,647,713 2,908,213 Approved /Existing Retail Space within PUDs Commercial Zoning Existing Vacant Commercial 50.09 88.08 Acreage oimr uyurea are cased on a compnarion or me zuu5 commercial inventory, 2005 Property Appraiser's data and the 2000 -2005 approved rezones- FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • The property is bordered by community facility uses to the north and west, single - family residential development zoned Estates and Cambridge Square PUD to the east separated by Livingston Road, and multi - family residential development zoned PUD to the south separated by Pine Ridge Road. T Agenda Item 4H • Based on the total existing commercial inventory in the primary trade center, staff believes there is an adequate supply to meet the present demand. • The 10.47 acre site is encompassed by a 6.7 acre FPL easement limiting the usable acreage of the site to 3.8 acres, ranging from 57 feet to 167 feet in width. • There was an increase in Commercial square footage /acreage per the 2003 vs. 2005 Commercial Inventory study data. • There are no Environmental or Public Utility issues regarding the property. • There are traffic - related concerns, as previously noted. EAC RECOMMENDATION: The EAC does not review this type of petition. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) SYNOPSIS: NIM Synopsis provided by Linda Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator: The applicant/agent duly noticed, advertised and held the required Neighborhood Information Meeting on January 18, 2007, 5:30 p.m. The meeting was held at the North Collier Government Services Center, 2335 Orange Blossom Drive, Naples, Florida. The applicant's team and county staff attended, however no public arrived for the NIM. In the absence of public response, the petitioner officially closed the meeting at 5:50 p.m. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP- 2005 -7 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community of Affairs. Should the CCPC recommend approval for Transmittal, staff recommends the following text revisions (staff additions shown in double underline, staff deletions shown in ale atfikstWew@h), for clarity, and consistency within the paragraph. b. Northwest Quadrant The feasibility of interconnections to the adjacent properties to the North and West will be considered and, if deemed feasible, will be required during the rezoning of the subject property. This quadrant shall be limited to a maximum of 70.000 square feet of building area total and limited to general and medical office uses, feet. Building height shall be limited to three stories with a 50 foot maximum height. PREPARED BY: 7 4,&�, /C 7l/ a/d_t- Marcia R. Kendall, JSenior Planner REVIEWED BY: ✓Y t David Weeks, AICP Growth Man gement Plan Manager REVIEWED BY: - Randall J. Cohen, AICP Comprehensive Planning Director Agenda Item 4H DATE: o2 -,;XO - 0 7 DATE: :2 • 20 -D7 DATE: Z -Z6 - ('7 REVIEWED BY: Q:'. Q-A DATE: 2 '20 -zip Marjorie 0. Student-Stirling 0 Assistant County Attorney Office of the Collier County Attorney APPROVED BY: DATE: �;V a7 ose h K. Schmitt, Administrator o munity Development & Environmental Services Petition Number: CP- 2005 -7 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007 CCPC hearing. This petition has been scheduled for the June 4, 2007 BCC hearing. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN CP- 2005 -07 Staff Rpt Transmittal /Item 4H F, GMP Petitions, gmp cycle amendments /transmittal /ccpc /staff report 0 Agenda Item 4J 1 • eY Ci"141-lty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MARCH 5, 2007 RE: PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -09, CORKSCREW ISLAND NEIGHBORHOOD COMMERCIAL SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] AGENT /APPLICANT /OWNERS: Agent: Richard D. Yovanovich Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A 4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Agent: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP O. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Applicant and Owner: GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: Robert E. Williams 1580 East 401h Terrace SW Naples, FL 34116 The subject property contains approximately 8.0 acres and is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Immokalee Road and Platt Road. The property has approximately 630 feet of frontage on Immokalee Road and 553 feet of frontage on Platt Road. The property lies within the Corkscrew Planning Community in Section 27, Township 47 South, Range 27 East, in Collier County, Florida. (See Attachment "A ") -1- Agenda Item 4J REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) and Future Land Use Map of the Collier County Growth Management Plan to [change the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District designation in order to] establish the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict for a 90,000 square foot, 8.0 acre retail, office & personal service development in Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands. The proposed text change adds new Subdistrict language in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District [showing the petitioner's proposed amendments in strike - through /underline format, while current Growth Management Plan language appears in plain text] as follows: Proposed Future Land Use Element Text Amendment: [page ? ?] B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District — Neutral Lands ? ?. Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide a neighborhood level commercial land uses in an area of Collier County that has a rapidly increasing population* and demand for conveniently located commercial goods and services The historical land uses in this area have been predominantly rural in nature and the growing population has largely been required to obtain food items, personal services, and other commercial goods from purveyors located in the urbanized area of Collier County. Collier County recognizes the resulting benefits to the local infrastructure when appropriately scaled commercial goods and services are conveniently located near population centers The Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict comprises approximately 8 acres The Subdistrict will permit a variety of retail office and personal services uses that are generally consistent with the types of uses found in the C -2 Commercial Convenience zoning district A maximum of 90.000 square feet of gross leasable building area shall be permitted in the Subdistrict. Rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD [Staff Note: The contention that this area of Collier County is experiencing a "rapidly increasing population" may not be supported by application materials. Staff analysis below addresses this idea in more detail.] PURPOSE/ DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of this project is to establish the "Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict" so as to accommodate a future rezone to allow commercial development. The petitioner proposes to provide a maximum of 90,000 square feet for office, retail, and personal services typically found in the C -2, Commercial Convenience zoning district. 2- Agenda Item 4J SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION: Existing Conditions: The subject property is currently vacant and zoned C -2, Commercial Convenience District (easterly 3.25 acre portion), and MH, Mobile Home District - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District, Neutral Lands (westerly 4.75 acre portion). A gas station /restaurant previously occupied the site closest to Immokalee Road. Mobile homes once stood on the westernmost portion of the property. A treatment pond was excavated likely for use by both mobile home residents and the business. It is now silted in. The property is currently (temporarily) being utilized as parking and some staging for the Immokalee Road expansion project. The current Future Land Use Designation is Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands. Surrounding Lands: N - ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural - MHO, Mobile Home Overlay District - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District, Neutral Lands DESCRIPTION: Undeveloped, Vacant & Residential Land Uses. A fire station lies approximately one -half mile to the northeast of the subject property. FLUM DESIGNATION: Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands S- ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District, Neutral Lands DESCRIPTION: Across Platt Road (an unpaved two -lane roadway), Undeveloped, Vacant & Residential Land Uses FLUM DESIGNATION: Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands; Receiving Lands, beyond E - ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District DESCRIPTION: Across Immokalee Road, Undeveloped, Vacant & Residential Land Uses FLUM DESIGNATION: Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands W - ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural - MHO, Mobile Home Overlay District DESCRIPTION: Undeveloped, Vacant & Residential Land Uses. Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary, a privately -owned conservation area, lies approximately one- _,_ half mile to the west. 3- Agenda Item 4J FLUM DESIGNATION: Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands. Conservation Designation, with CREW NRPA (Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed Natural Resource Protection Area) lying approximately one -half mile to the west (Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary). STAFF ANALYSIS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements." Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue... the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and analysis for the applicant, although it is staff's responsibility to identify any shortcomings in the data and analyses during the consistency review process and to request additional information that is deemed essential in the review of the submitted request for a plan amendment. Any outstanding deficiencies with respect to data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the responsibility of the applicant. A detailed synopsis of the adequacy of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment is set forth with specificity below. The entire subject property — 3.25 acres zoned C -2, Commercial Convenience District and 4.75 acres zoned MH, Mobile Home District — is recognized as one of the County's properties consistent by policy, and identified on MAP FLUE -15 as, "Existing Zoning Consistent with FLUE by Policy 5.9, 5.10, 5.11 [and] 5.12 ". Though the zoning on the subject property is not consistent with the Future Land Use Designation, Description Section (Designations: Districts and Subdistricts), these policies allow the property to be developed as zoned. The granting of this amendment would create a rectangular Commercial Subdistrict boundary in the northwest quadrant of this intersection. This rectangular boundary would be surrounded with rural density residential lots or structures. It is likely approval of this amendment will ►m Agenda Item 4J encourage future requests for amendments to allow commercial development on the other three quadrants of this Immokalee Road /Platt Road intersection. The granting of this amendment could have negative impacts upon the existing adjoining and nearby single - family residential development to all directions from the subject property. Environmental Impacts: The petitioner prepared an Environmental Assessment which was submitted with this petition. The fine sand soils underlying the property are described as "poorly drained" and "nearly level" consistent with Pine Flatwoods. The man -made structures and past uses have altered the natural habitat to the extent it no longer supports any listed species typically found there. It is likely that wildlife would normally traverse or migrate through an area consistent with their habitat, while it is less likely the same species would use a disturbed property to move from one area of habitat to another. Environmental review specialists with the Collier County Environmental Services reviewed the environmental assessment and provided the following comment: Environmental Services staff finds no significant issues on this site, and does not recommend additional environmental conditions. Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Analysis: The petitioner /agent prepared a Traffic Impact Statement which was submitted with this petition. The content of the TIS did not include the analyses typically provided in a Growth Management Plan Amendment application. The subject property is located at the northwest corner of Immokalee Road and Platt Road and proposes 90,000 square feet of office and retail space. The commercial activities would produce 3,880 daily gross new trips (2 -way) and 421 PM Peak Hour gross new trips. Although the property has been abandoned, the buildings razed, and commercial activities and mobile homes are no longer present, TIS Trip Generation calculations are compared to existing uses. Traffic generated [by these absent] existing uses is estimated to be 2,509 daily gross trips (2- way) and 298 PM Peak Hour gross trips. This comparison results in a positive trip generation of 1,371 daily net trips (2 -way) and 123 PM Peak Hour net trips. [3,880 — 2509 = 1,371 daily, and 421 — 298 = 123 peak hour trips] TIS findings conclude that the impact of project traffic volumes on the roadway network surrounding the project site is not significant. "Significant impact' is defined in Capital Improvement Element (CIE) Policy 1.1.2 as any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that will generate a volume of traffic equal to or greater than 3% of the LOS of the impacted roadway. Staff notes that recently- approved EAR -based amendments to CIE Policy 1.1.2 reduced this LOS "significant impact' standard from 3% to 2% (and are not yet in effect). This change occurred afterthe Transportation staff initially reviewed this Transportation Impact - Statement and commented. -5- Agenda Item 4J The Collier County Transportation Planning Department reviewed the traffic statement and provided the following comment: "Though we [the Transportation Planning specialists] did not receive a traffic analysis with this [petition], based on the size of the development and the remaining capacity on Immokalee Road this project appears to be consistent with the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Access points, turn lanes and other transportation issues will be addressed when we get further detail on the project at a future development stage." This situation poses a more immediate concern. Without validation by the Collier County Transportation Planning Department of a full traffic analysis, the exact impact on roadways has not been ascertained with absolute certainty. Other factors must be considered. CP -05 -09 is not the only GMP amendment proposed where commercial development introduces unplanned traffic onto Immokalee Road. This is not the only traffic analysis affected by EAR -based amendments reducing the LOS "significant impact" standard from 3% to 2 %. Therefore, a comprehensive traffic analysis should be prepared, comparing old CIE provisions to new, fully addressing capacity and circulation issues. Its complete review and validation affirmed and reported by the proper staff is necessary to provide the certainty desired. Staff believes immediate consideration should be given to requiring an upgraded TIS be provided by the petitioner. Subsequently, another review by specialists with the Collier County Transportation Planning Department should take place before the CCPC proceeds with a recommendation. Reconsideration should be given to the vague conclusion offered in the TIS Discussion, stating "[a]II segments will operate at [an acceptable] LOS Standard or better. All segments will also have excess peak hour capacity greater than the projected trip generation for the subject property ". It does reflect the comprehensive analysis desired for a Growth Management Plan amendment. Public Facilities Imoact The petitioner prepared a Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis which was submitted with this petition. Application materials provided no water demand figure. No sewer capacity figure provided. The Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict property is not in the Collier County Water & Sewer District. Potable water and sanitary sewer services will not be provided by the District's systems. This project would not impact the County's existing Level of Service Standards (LOSS). Development would use a private water well and on -site treatment system. An on -site system with a capacity exceeding 5,000 gpd requires Florida Department of Environmental protection (FDEP) approval. The fine sand soils underlying the property are described in this petition's Environmental Assessment as "poorly drained" and "nearly level ". These soil characteristics will make finding a suitable site for a septic system here difficult - particularly one designed to serve 90,000 square feet of gross leasable building area accommodating an array of commercial uses. Public facilities other than roads, potable water and sanitary sewer (drainage, solid waste), will not impose a "significant" impact (generating potential for increased County -wide population 0 Agenda Item 4J greater than 3% of the BEBR high range population projections, as defined in Policy 1.1.2 of the CIE and other applicable Growth Management Plan Elements). However, for some public facilities, such as park facilities, the impacts will be lessened since this is not a residential project. Facilities review specialists with the Collier County Public Utilities Services reviewed the Analysis and provided the following comment: Public Utilities Staff finds no significant issues on this site, and does not recommend additional public facilities - related conditions. Appropriateness of Change: The practicality of the petitioner's proposed Subdistrict is to be established through an evaluation of population growth and infrastructure development in the surrounding areas to ascertain sufficient need for the proposed land use. There does not appear to be adequate, relevant or appropriate data and analysis in the form or content of the petition's market analysis as reflected by staff evaluation comments below. It is premature to designate eight acres for entirely unplanned commercial development through a piecemeal approach before the comprehensive East of 951 Study is completed. In staff's opinion, approval of this amendment may result in nearby properties seeking higher densities, or non - residential uses, for compatibility purposes. Commercial Development There is no trend toward commercial development immediately surrounding the proposed commercial Subdistrict. But at a more - distant 3.5 to 6.0 mile radius from the proposed Subdistrict commercial land uses are evident, as follows: ♦ 2 PUDs in the Randall Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict [5.5 to 6.0 miles away] ♦ Orangetree PUD (22 acres of commercial, with a pending zoning petition to increase this to 34 acres and more than 300,000 sq. ft.) [4.5 to 5.0 miles away] ♦ Immokalee Road - Everglades Boulevard Neighborhood Center (9.2 acres) [3.5 + miles away] ♦ Orange Blossom Ranch PUD [6.0 + miles away] `Neighborhood Centers' and `Commercial Subdistricts', and the "vested" Rural Settlement Area District (Orangetree and Orange Blossom Ranch PUDs), are components of the Future Land Use Element and Golden Gate Area Master Plan of the Growth Management Plan. Commercial Demand Analysis: The petitioner prepared a Market Conditions Analysis analyzing market conditions within the Rural Estates and Corkscrew Planning Community Districts (PCDs). These two areas begin along northerly County boundaries at the northwest, north and northeast, then District boundaries turn south to run along Oil Well Road, then turn south again approximately two miles lr Agenda Item 4J equidistantly east of Everglades Boulevard to 1 -75, west to Collier Boulevard, then north to complete the boundary — nearly all the developable land outside the Immokalee urban planning area and Naples urban and urban fringe planning areas. The population and trade area studied extends to approximately a three mile radius. The primary market area studied runs east to Everglades Boulevard and south to Randall Boulevard. The market area to the west and north is constrained by the proximity of Corkscrew Swamp Sanctuary. The findings of the [updated] study materials are as follows: • Growth in northern Collier County is projected to nearly double the population of the Rural Estates Planning Community District (PCD) during the period 2005 to 2015. This "Rural Estates" area is projected to grow from 33,940 persons in 2005 to 65,345 persons in 2015 an increase of 31,405 persons; The "Corkscrew" area is projected to nearly triple, growing from 1,936 persons in 2005 to 5,616 persons in 2015 an increase of 3,680 persons, according to October, 2005 estimates provided by the County's Comprehensive Planning Section. • The nearby planned developments of the Orangetree PUD and Orange Blossom Ranch PUD include commercial components totaling approximately 70 acres. However, many of the proposed commercial land uses are designed to serve a larger geographic area (including personnel related to Ave Maria University and area schools) than the proposed Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict. • Further, the market - conditions study utilized land -use inventory data from the 2005 Collier County Commercial Land Use Inventory to document the need for new commercial facilities near the subject property. The inventory demonstrated approximately 160 acres are currently zoned for commercial land use development, leaving a deficit of about 280 acres [within the entire Rural Estates and Corkscrew PCDs, not the 3 -mile trade area]. In conclusion, the study reports that the GMP "does not provide alternative opportunities for neighborhood commercial uses in the study area ". The Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Commercial Subdistrict will satisfy a growing demand for goods and services. It is "well located to serve the population with direct access to Immokalee Road, and without negative impacts to any nearby residential properties ". The petitioner has not provided data and analysis supporting their concluding claims stated above, particularly those referring to opportunities and impacts. Quite the opposite is more likely to be closer to fact than these claims. Numerous commercial development opportunities are provided, including pre -zoned commercial land yet undeveloped, Mixed Use Activity Centers, commercial subdistricts and neighborhood centers already existing or planned in the Golden Gate Estates area, and the commercial components of Rural Villages (a total of four are allowed in RFMUD Receiving Lands, including one about a mile to the South - southeast of the subject property); Depending on a final design, direct access onto Immokalee Road may prove to be problematic, and; no information is provided to substantiate that the proposal is without some negative impact to residential neighbors, present and future. It should be noted that growth has trended downward since the growth projections used in the analysis were prepared. The population figures are no longer valid based on change in 2006 to M Agenda Item 4J 2007 market conditions. Further, much of the referenced growth projected lies outside the 3- mile trade area. The population projection methodology used in the CIE has been revised from using high -range BEBR figures to medium -range (in the adopted but not yet in effect EAR -based GMP amendments). Staff also notes that it is likely that new residential construction is being further affected by delays with expanding the area's roadway network, lessening the demand for commercial centers providing for the personal service, retail and office needs of future residents. Certain land uses permitted within RFMU Receiving Lands are not authorized in Neutral Lands [particularly commercial development]. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use, Neutral Lands provisions limit allowable uses to those appropriate for limited, semi -rural residential development, as follows: Agricultural land uses, including farm labor housing • Detached single - family residences, including mobile homes where a Zoning Overlay exists • Multi- family residential units, when clustered • Group homes • Golf courses and driving ranges • Botanical gardens, zoos, and aquariums • Public and private schools Community facilities, such as cemeteries, places of worship, childcare facilities Habitat preservation and conservation areas, including incidental staff housing Parks, open space, and recreational uses Sporting and recreational camps Essential services Earthmining, oil extraction and processing Other Considerations: • The approval of commercial development or other non - residential uses where none is planned is directly inconsistent with the creation and purpose of the RFMUD Neutral Lands. • The development of Rural Villages is expected and encouraged in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) District, Receiving Lands, which are required to include a commercial component that could meet some commercial demand derived from semi -rural areas surrounding them. One such Rural Village may develop as close as one mile from the subject property. A second, pending Rural Village is the Immokalee Road South PUD located about eight road miles to the southwest of the subject property, on the south side of Immokalee Road. • The East of County Road 951 Study. This study, presently underway, is examining infrastructure and land use issues and needs, including commercial land, and providing an overall calculation of land use needs within the area of Collier County, east of County Road 951 (Collier Boulevard). It is most likely premature to designate the subject property commercial before the East of 951 Study is completed. Agenda Item 4J Neighborhood Information Meeting SvnoDsis The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F was conducted January 24, 2007, after the agent/applicant duly noticed and advertised the meeting. 25 people attended the NIM, held in the Oakridge Middle School cafeteria, and heard the following information: The subject property currently lies in two different zoning districts — with the front half being zoned for commercial uses, while the back half is zoned for a mobile home park. People familiar with the property know it as the' Wagon Wheel ", for the business once located here. Petitioners have recently presented information to the Corkscrew Island Neighborhood Organization about this proposal. Most discussion surrounded traffic concerns, as the subject property is located along a (90 degree) bend in Immokalee Road. Attendees voiced their concern about large truck traffic especially, as these trucks round this curve at speed, and sight distances would be dangerously short. Petitioner explained that addressing these problems would likely include providing turn lanes out front, on Immokalee Road. Traffic concerns may also be minimized by aligning the commercial entrance with the (Platt Road) street intersection across Immokalee Road. [Synopsis prepared by L Koehler, Public Information Coordinator, and C. Schmidt, Principal Planner] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Based upon total existing commercial inventory in the market study area, staff recognizes there is a need for commercial uses to serve the surrounding communities, but not necessarily at this specific location. • The magnitude and scale of this project (90,000 square feet of gross leasable floor area of C- 2 uses) is similar to neighborhood commercial development in the high range of size. As a result of this amendment there are no significant impacts to public facilities, as defined in the CIE, with respect to Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater Drainage and Solid Waste facilities. However, during subsequent rezone petition review if this project is approved, the Transportation Planning Department will be requested to ascertain whether the impacted roadways are projected to operate at an unacceptable Level of Service within the five -year planning period. The subject property abuts one principal arterial roadway - Immokalee Road, and one local, unpaved dead -end roadway — Platt Road. 10- Agenda Item 4J • The proposed expansion of Immokalee Road (presently a two -lane road under reconstruction, scheduled to be a six -lane facility by mid -2007, extending west to US -41 and east to 43rtl Street, with future plans to extend even further east) has yet to accommodate increasing traffic demands. The adjacent roadway is not expected to experience improvements for more than five years. • Certain land uses are not authorized in RFMUD, Neutral Lands — particularly commercial development — as they are not appropriate for or compatible with limited, semi -rural residential development. • Approval of this petition is likely to lead to other requests for increased density, or non- residential uses, on nearby properties. • The Rural Villages expected and encouraged in RFMUD, Receiving Lands include a commercial component; these could meet some commercial demand, thereby reducing the amount of commercial land speculation in rural areas. • The existing zoning on the site and /or uses allowed by the RFMUD Neutral Lands designation presently allow uses that appear to be viable. • The East of 951 Study is presently underway, examining infrastructure and land use issues and needs, including commercial land. Designating the subject property commercial before the East of 951 Study is completed is premature. ry Staff concludes the data and analysis for the subject Growth Management Plan amendment may adequately support additional commercial development somewhere in the market study area. Staff also concludes however, that the data and analysis does not support it at this specific location. The petition is most likely premature and out of scale with regard to anticipated future commercial needs in the RFMUD. The need for commercial land uses in this geographic area cannot be adequately ascertained at this time, and until Rural Villages in RFMUD Receiving Lands have been submitted for review and approved. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the CCPC forward Petition CP- 2005 -09 to the BCC with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community of Affairs for the reasons stated above. However, if the Planning Commission determines that a recommendation of approval is warranted, staff recommends not adding this subdistrict to the RFMUD, rather removing the site from RFMUD and placing it under the Agricultural /Rural Mixed Use District, and adding this proposed subdistrict there. Further, staff recommends modifications to the proposed language, noted below in double strike - through /double underline format, as follows: 11- Agenda Item 4J Prepared By: Date: �b Corby L. S hmidt, Principal Planner Comprehe sive Planning /Department Reviewed By: l�✓�`'� Date: David C. Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By: Date: 2- 2v -o.-7 Ra dall J. Co en, AICP, Director Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By: / 1 " ; t'? - LLC.-..Ca. c-- U Date: 2 - 2-e - 0"21 Marj ie M. Stud nt- Stirling Assistant County Attorney Office of the Collier County Attorney Approved By: Date: .tea l7 6C dunity h K. Schmitt, Administrator Development and Environmental Services Division PETITION NO.: CP- 2005 -09 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007 CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 4, 2007 BCC Meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, Chairman Agenda Item 4K Coi[�ier Co-Iti.vi.ty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: March 5, 2007 RE: PETITION CP- 2005 -10, GROWH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] AGENT /APPLICANT /OWNERS Agent: Vanasse Daylor 12730 New Brittany Blvd., Suite 600 Fort Myers, FL 33907 Applicant/ Keith & Jeff Basik Owner: Basik Development, L.L.C. 720 Goodlette Road, Suite 305 Naples, FL 34102 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, containing 9.7± acres, is located north of U.S. 41 Tamiami Trail East and west of Trinity Place, within Section 17, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, and is located within the Royal Fakapalm Planning Community. The proposed Subdistrict is within the Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District — Receiving Lands. [This petition (CP- 2002 -2) was originally submitted in 2002, but placed on hold until the County's Rural Fringe Amendments were adopted. As part of the 2003 cycle amendments, the BCC failed to approve this petition due to issues related to the purchase of Transfer of Development Rights credits. This petition has been revised to: 1) increase the proposed commercial development from 75,000 sq. ft. to 88,110 sq. ft.; 2) eliminate the maximum sq. ft. requirement of 5,000 sq. ft. for individual structures; and 3) eliminate the 25,000 sq. ft. requirement for all non -flea market related uses.] SITE LOCATION MAPS Agenda Item 4K xn: fix'. sP x i Pro osed ?E cE B ProjeeO Site , II. REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) text and Future Land Use Map by: 1. Amending Policy 1.2 of the Agricultural /Rural - Mixed Use District to add the Naples Big Cypress Commerce Center Subdistrict; 2. Amending the Agricultural /Rural — Mixed Use District to add the proposed Subdistrict; and 3. Creating a new Future Land Use Map series map depicting this new Subdistict, and amending the Future Land Use Map to add this new Subdistrict. The proposed change to Policy 1.2 and the proposed Subdistrict text is as follows: (Single underlined text is added, as proposed by the petitioner.) Policy 1.2: A. AGRICULTURAL/RURAL -MIXED USE DISTRICT 1. Rural Commercial Subdistrict 2. Naples Big Cypress Commerce Center Subdistrict [new text, page 121 A. Agricultural /Rural - Mixed Use District 2. Naples Big Cypress Commerce Center Subdistrict [new text, page 54] This Subdistrict which comprised approximately 9.79 acres is located at the northwest corner of Agenda Item 4K development of a flea market on the existing C -4 and C -5 commercially zoned parcels, together complementary additional mixed -use commercial activities in the Subdistrict. Development of the Subdistrict will be governed by the following criteria: a. The rezoning shall be in the form of a Planned Unit Development (PUD). b. C. 5 zoning districts. d. Commercial development shall not exceed 88.110 square feet. e. No building shall exceed a height of thirty -five (35) feet. f. Access shall be limited to Trinity Place, except if the Florida Department of Transportation allows limited access from U.S. 41, such as right -in /right -out turning movements. g. A fifty (50) foot landscaped buffer shall be provided parallel to U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail). h. Automobile parking lots shall be visually screened from views from U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail) with vegetation or earthen berms to the greatest extent possible. i. No building permits will be issued for development in this Subdistrict until such time as building permits have been issued for at least 40,000 square feet of retail space in the contiguous C -4 and C -5 zoning districts. III. PURPOSE /DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioners are requesting approval for a new commercial subdistrict, consisting of approximately 88,110 square feet of general commercial (C -4) and heavy commercial (C -5) uses, on 9.79± acres. IV. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: Existing Conditions: The subject site is undeveloped; zoned "A," Rural Agricultural district, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay — Receiving Lands; and designated Agricultural /Rural Designation — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands, on the Future Land Use Map of the Future Land Use Element. Surrounding Land Uses: North: Undeveloped parcel; zoned "A," Rural Agricultural district, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay — Receiving Lands; and designated Agricultural /Rural Designation — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands. South: Across U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail, East), developed — residential single - family and guest house; zoned "A," Rural Agricultural district, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay — Neutral Lands; and designated Agricultural /Rural Designation — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands. Agenda Item 4K Southwest: Across U.S. 41 (Tamiami Trail, East), developing — land clearing, infrastructure installation, etc.; zoned PUD, Fiddler's Creek Planned Unit Development (residential tract); and designated Agricultural /Rural Designation — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Neutral Lands. West: Undeveloped parcel; zoned C -4, General Commercial district, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay — Receiving Lands; and designated Agricultural /Rural Designation — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands. [This property, along with the next property to the west (zoned C -5 and designated Agricultural /Rural — Rural Industrial District), is approved for approximately 87,500 -sq. ft. of commercial development for a flea market, which is presently under construction.] East: Across Trinity Place, developed — residential single - family, zoned "A," Rural Agricultural district, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay — Receiving Lands and designated Agricultural /Rural Designation — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands; and, a predominantly undeveloped parcel, except for the eastern boundary — developed with golf course greens, zoned "A," Rural Agricultural district, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay — Receiving Lands, and designated Agricultural /Rural Designation — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands. V. STAFF ANALYSIS: Comprehensive Plan Amendment data and analysis reauirement: Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements." Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue... the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and analysis for the applicant, although it is staff's responsibility to identify any shortcomings in the data and analyses during the consistency review process and to request additional information that is deemed essential in the review of the submitted request for a plan amendment. Any outstanding deficiencies with respect to data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the responsibility of the applicant. A detailed synopsis of the adequacy of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment is set forth with specificity below. Agenda Item 41K Background, Considerations and Appropriateness of Change: • Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) The Governor and Cabinet issued a Final Order on June 22, 1999, which required the County to conduct a rural and agricultural assessment for the Rural and Conservation Designated lands within the County. The assessment required the County to identify and adopt measures to protect and conserve natural resources such as wetlands, wildlife and their habitats, and prevent the premature conversion of unique agricultural lands to other uses. Two programs were adopted by the County to address the requirements of the Final Order; the Rural Lands Stewardship Area Program and the Transfer of Development Rights Program (TDR) for properties within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District — relevant to the subject property. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) was established to address agricultural lands within the transitional area between Golden Gate Estates and the County's urban area and between the urban area and the vast agricultural lands and agricultural operations farther to the east. The land use strategies developed and employed in the RFMUD direct incompatible land uses away from environmentally sensitive lands. The Sending Lands are those lands within the RFMUD that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. The Receiving Lands are those lands identified as being the most appropriate for development and to which residential units may be received from areas designated as Sending Lands. The RFMUD contains specific land uses and development standards for all properties located within the District, such as locational criteria for commercial development. The RFMUD allows commercial development only within a Rural Village on lands designated Receiving. The subject property is located in a Receiving area where a 2,500 -acre Rural Village development is allowed. The RFMUD, Receiving Lands were never intended to allow "spot" commercial development, as proposed by this Growth Management Plan Amendment. In order for the TDR Program to be successful it is critical to adhere to the established parameters outlined in the RFMUD. • Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD), Receiving Lands — Allowed densities and Permitted and Conditional Uses: Density: Base Density — 1 residential unit per 5 acres, or legal lot of record Max. Density— 1 residential unit per acre w/ Transfer of Development Rights Credits /Bonuses (minimum of 40 acres & subject to RFMUD criteria) Permitted and Conditional Uses include: • Agriculture • Single- family residential units, including mobile homes where applicable, and subject to Rural Fringe TDR provisions • Multi- family residential structures, subject to LDC standards • Rural Village mixed use projects, subject to TDR provisions • Dormitory /staff housing associated with conservation uses • Group housing subject to certain limitations • Staff housing associated with safety services and essential services Agenda Item 4K • Farm labor housing subject to density limitations • Sporting and recreational camps • Essential services • Golf courses, subject to Rural Fringe TDR and design provisions • Commercial development as part of a Rural Village • Research and technology parks as part of a Rural Village • Zoos, aquariums, botanical gardens or similar uses • Public and private schools, subject to certain conditions • Solid waste collection, transfer and processing facilities • Community facilities, including churches, childcare facilities, cemeteries and social /fraternal organizations • Sports instructional schools and camps • Earthmining and oil extraction facilities and related processing • Asphalt and concrete plants The subject parcel is eligible for 1 residential unit or up to 9 residential units when aggregated with additional parcels and utilizing the TDR Program; and, is eligible for all permitted and conditional use development, as outlined above in the RFMUD - Receiving Lands designation. The present designation on the subject site allows development consistent with the surrounding development patterns both existing and proposed. • Establishment of Activity Centers and Properties Consistent by Policy: Mixed Use Activity Centers were established in the 1989 Growth Management Plan as a means to direct most new commercial development to areas in the County where existing and planned infrastructure and services would be available to accommodate higher intensity land uses. During this time the County also established the Zoning Reevaluation Program. The Program, in part, attempted to eliminate strip and isolated commercial development. Properties zoned inconsistent with the 1989 Future Land Use Element (FLUE) commercial locational criteria were either downzoned or, through specific provisions in the Zoning Reevaluation Ordinance, were allowed to retain their zoning. These properties are now identified on "Consistent by Policy" maps as part of the Future Land Use map series and are allowed to develop or redevelop per their existing zoning. Expansion of this commercial zoning would be allowed only if the expansion is consistent with commercial provisions in the FLUE, e.g. Office and Commercial Infill Subdistrict. The commercial zoning (C -4 and C- 5) adjacent to the subject property, and under the same ownership, were deemed Consistent by Policy. The subject property does not qualify for new commercial zoning and development. • Justification for the proposed amendment and commercial demand analysis, as provided by the agent (refer to Exhibit V.D.5): The agent asserts, "...contiguous land use conditions clearly are incompatible with any potential the subject lands may have for residential use." Staff notes, the adjacent commercially zoned property west of the subject site is under the same ownership as the subject parcel. The owner of the subject site has the ability to eliminate many of the potential impacts from the adjacent commercially Agenda Item 4K zoned property by buffering the flea market use from the subject property as well as considering appropriate placement of structures on the commercial site, etc. • Staff notes, several non - residential uses, including conditional uses, are allowed on the subject property and are consistent with the property's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands Designation. Economic Justification: • The agent states that [unspecified] portions of Census Tracts 111.01 and 111.02 make up the "potential trade area of any commercial activity for local goods and services." However, staff notes the provided housing figures from the Census Bureau include all households within Tracts 111.01 and 111.02. This results in an over estimation of households in the proposed market/trade area, by an unknown amount. • The subject property is located in the Royal Fakapalm Planning Community. Tracts 111.01 & 111.02 +2LY0q I1 W,I 1 , EEO 109..'. II ,I I #7 PLANNING COMMUNITIES COLLIER COUNTY FLORIDA • The agent failed to explain the methodology used to calculate the existing and projected residential units and population within the market/trade area. Commercial Needs Analysis and Inventory: • The petitioner's analysis is limited to estimates of potential households (6,064) within a proximate distance from the subject site and their estimated buying power. • The competing commercial information provided was limited. Household figures were provided for a large geographic area (all of Census Tracts 111.01 and 111.02); however, the existing and proposed commercial sq. ft. for the same area was not provided in the analysis, rather, only a 3 -mile radius. The agent provided select dwelling unit data as listed below, but did not provide data sources, and did not account for vacancy rates. By definition a household is an occupied dwelling unit; vacant units are not included. Therefore, a household figure would be less than the total dwelling unit figure (unless there was 100 percent occupancy, which is unusual and unlikely). 7 Project Description Naples Reserve Golf Club [PUD] Walnut Lakes [PUD] Imperial Wilderness [RV Community] Westwind Estates [Mobile Home Subdivision] Paradise Pointe [PUD —RVs] Boyne South [PUD] Agenda Item 4K Number of Dwelling Units 552 612 549 500 383 218 (171 approved per PUD list dated 2/07) Western portion of Fiddlers Creek PUD Sec. 12, 18, & 19 — 1,500 ac. @ 1.5 du /ac (Fiddler's Creek approval 6,000) Miscellaneous Areas (est.) Ranch Rd, Trinity Place, Riggs Rd. & sections lying within 3 miles of subject land Total: 2,250 1,000 6,064 The agent states that 5,000 households will support a medium size shopping center of 100,000 to 150,000 sq. ft. and 10 acres of land (source — Koppleman and DeChiaria). The agent states that by 2010 the trade area will contain approximately 6,000 dwelling units. (This number is not substantiated with data and analysis, such as an absorption schedule.) The agent states that by 2015 the trade area will contain approximately 10,000 units. (This number is not substantiated with data and analysis, such as an absorption schedule.) Buying Power (provided by agent) Collier County EBI (effective buying power) = $46,118 (agent did not provide source) Market area EBI= (9,628 *) units x $46,118 = $444M Retail Sales = $444M x (60 % *) = $266M/$280 sq. ft. = 995,000 sq. ft. of neighborhood shopping demand (figure incorrectly calculated; approximately 950,000* sq. ft.) (* numbers were backed into based on information provided by the agent.) The agent provided the countywide median household EBI, rather than a figure appropriate to the specific trade area, and then applied this figure to an unidentified household count within the Royal Fakapalm Planning community in order to determine the projected commercial demand in 2015. (As provided by • Two (2) gas /convenience stations containing 1,500 sq. ft. each or 3,000 sq. ft. total. Three (3) parcels zoned C -2 and C -3 (Present uses, acreage, and commercial sq. ft. was not provided by the agent.) • Flea market use on 8.4 acres, with approval for 87,500 sq. ft. of retail and service functions [the adjacent C -4 and C -5 parcels are owned by the petitioner]. Agenda Item 4K VI. Environmental Impacts: The environmental report prepared by E. W. Consultants, Inc. and submitted with this petition, dated December 2006 indicates the following: • The site is mostly composed of disturbed habitat, including a pond located in the center of the property. There are no vertical man -made structures on site and no impervious surfaces. Little of the native south Florida vegetation remain on site with the exception of a few cypress trees, cabbage palms and slash pines, as well as various native grasses. The soil found on site is listed as Holowpaw fine sand. • The listed species survey conducted on site concluded that there were no listed species found foraging or nesting, and there were no signs of gopher tortoises. Non - listed species observed include, marsh hawk, red - tailed hawk (no nests), cormorants, doves and evidence (tracks) of raccoon and bobcat were visible. • According to the consultant, a search of the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission's database reveals that an eagle nest is located approximately 1.1 miles south /southwest of the site. • According to the consultant, no critical habitat for federally or state listed endangered species exist on the site. The project site is not located within primary or secondary panther habitat, but is within the federal panther consultation area. A few historic panther telemetry points from data dating back to 1981 are recorded within a 2 -mile radius of the project site. None of these points was noted in the vicinity of the project in the 2004 -2005 Florida Wildlife Conservation Florida Panther Annual Report. Environmental Specialists with the Collier County Environmental Services Dept. reviewed the environmental report and provided the following comments: • Policy 6.1.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) requires 40% of native vegetation, not to exceed 25% of the total site be preserved on properties located in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use, Receiving Lands designation. Policy 6.1.1 of the CCME requires 15% of native vegetation be preserved on commercial properties > 5 acres in the Agricultural /Rural Designation. • No special environmental concerns are associated with the establishment of the Subdistrict on the subject site. Native vegetation preservation requirements will be specifically addressed during subsequent development order review (rezone and /or site development plan.) Historical and Archeological Impacts: The Florida Master Site File lists no previously recorded cultural resources in Section 17, Township 51 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. However, the Florida Dept. of State, Division of Historical Resources, cautions property owners that sites may contain unrecorded archaeological sites, unrecorded historically important structures, or both. Agenda Item 4K VII. Traffic CapacitvlTraffic Circulation Analysis and Impacts: • Traffic Capacity: The proposed project will generate 6,791 average daily trips, with approximately 276 -p.m. peak hour and 157 a.m. peak hour trips. The existing and committed network adjacent to this project consists of U.S. 41 as a two -lane section, east and west of the property. The two -lane section is not funded for improvement within the five year planning period. U.S. 41 has a directional peak hour service volume of 1,075 trips with a balance of -288 trips on the section closest to Collier Boulevard, yielding an operating level of service of "F." • Traffic Impacts and Circulation Analysis: Assuming 100,000 square feet (88,110 sq. ft. proposed in Subdistrict text) of commercial development, the ITE Trip Generation Handbook indicates that approximately 433 peak hour trips would be generated for a LU# 820 Shopping Center; 157 AM Peak Hour and 276 PM Peak Hour. Conversely, if a single residential unit was constructed on site, approximately two peak hour trips would be generated. Project access is proposed onto U.S. 41 via Trinity Place. • Consistency with the GMP: The proposed project is located in an area that contains significant vested approved developments that will add trips on an already failing link. There are no scheduled or funded improvements within the five -year planning period. Therefore, the additional 88,110 square feet of commercial uses is not consistent with policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. VIII. Public Facilities Impacts: Water and Wastewater: The subject property is located within the Collier County Water and Sewer District boundary. The agent did not provide the level of service impacts specific to the requested use — shopping center. Therefore, staff cannot determine the impacts of this project on water and wastewater facilities. [The 2002 submittal indicates: The average daily potable water demand for the project is projected to be 43,850 gallons per day, with a potential peak daily demand of 109,625 gallons per day; the average daily wastewater treatment demand is projected to be 35,000 gallons per day, with the potential to reach a peak daily demand of 122,500 gallons per day.] Solid Waste: The service provider is Collier County Solid Waste Management. The 2005 AUIR identifies that the County has sufficient landfill capacity up to the year 2027 for the required lined cell capacity. The project's anticipated build -out is projected in 2007. • Drainage: The subject property is located in Flood Zone AE -5. Future development is expected to comply with the SFWMD and /or Collier County rules and regulations that assure controlled accommodation of storm water events by both on -site and off -site improvements. • Schools, Libraries, Parks and Recreational Facilities: The application does not propose an increase in residential density; therefore, no additional demand for services is anticipated. 10 Agenda Item 4K • EMS, Fire, Police and County Jail: The subject project is located within the East Naples Fire District. The nearest fire station and EMS services and sheriff substation are located approximately seven miles from the site on U.S. 41 Tamiami Trail. The proposed Subdistrict is anticipated to have minimal impacts on safety services and jail facilities. IX- NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (NIM) NOTES: The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) was held on January 9, 2007, after the applicant/agent duly noticed and advertised the meeting, as required by the Collier County Land Development Code. Approximately 23 people attended the NIM, held at the St. Finnbar's Mission, located at 13520 Tamiami Trail East. • The following is a synopsis of the meeting: • A copy of Development Standards, "Exhibit IV -B Amendment Language to be added for a new Subdistrict" was provided to the attendees by the applicant's agent. The county staff principal planner gave a brief explanation of the GMPA process, including tentative public hearing dates. Individuals who spoke were concerned with the following: • Traffic impacts to Trinity Place and any resulting overflow parking that may occur as a result of the intended rezone project. Mr. Robin Meyer, agent for the applicant, assured the audience that his office "will get a traffic analysis statement to everyone who signed in (attendance log) who provided their contact information." [According to the agent a letter was sent to NIM attendees on February 27, 2007; a copy of the letter is attached to this Staff Report.] • The property owners (Mr. Jeff Basik and Mr. Keith Basik) and agent addressed comments and concerns of the surrounding property owners and discussed the following regarding the subject property and adjacent commercially zoned properties approved for a flea market use. The [Flea] Market Place has been approved for 500 parking places. The proposed [future] rezone would be consistent with C -4 and C -5 uses. No parking or flea market access [adjacent C -4 and C -5 site] on Trinity. Building height would be limited to 35 feet. Development expected at 9,000 square feet per acre. Total project development would be approximately 80,000 square feet. Subject project includes a 1.5 acre lake with a fountain feature and wall plantings. Property adjacent to Trinity Place will be buffered with a wall or landscaped with a berm to mitigate the parking area. Some of the subject site is proposed for overflow parking. • A rendering was shown of the adjacent property site "Indoor Market" and it was explained that there will be a "7,000 square feet, 50 feet height maximum arena to host music events, auctions, etc." • Mr. Basik also commented that, 'We are discussing a possible donation of property to the county for an EMS facility." [To date, Comprehensive Planning staff is unaware of any such commitment or agreement.] It Agenda Item 41K • Other comments and questions relative to the future widening of US -41 E. and the need for signalization in the vicinity were discussed. Some residents stated they have been involved in auto accidents in the area and questioned how the commercial use could be approved without a traffic signal. Mr. Basik said he had informational material (pamphlet) he could provide regarding future improvements to US -41 E. The meeting concluded at approximately 6:45 p.m. [Synopsis prepared by L. Bedtelyon, Community Planning Coordinator and modified by M. Mosca, Principal Planner] X. FINDING AND CONCLUSIONS: • The requisite data and analysis necessary to support or justify the proposed change from Agricultural /Rural Designation — Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands to the requested commercial subdistrict was not provided, as required by Rule 9J - 5 F.A.C. • The commercial data and analysis provided lacks the specificity needed by staff to determine the existing commercial inventory and demand within a defined geographic market area. • The data and analysis submitted with the petition fails to address or consider non- commercial development opportunities on the subject property. Conditional uses are allowed on Receiving Lands and typically generate less traffic, noise, etc. as well as provide transitional areas between commercial and residential development. • The present designation on the subject site allows development consistent with the surrounding development patterns both existing and proposed. • The proposed Subdistrict is inconsistent with the intent of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, specifically the commercial locational criteria. Commercial development within the RFMUD may only occur within Rural Villages located on designated Receiving Lands. The proposed Subdistrict addition circumvents the established development guidelines of the RFMUD. • A 2,500 -acre Rural Village development is permitted on the Receiving Lands surrounding the subject site. The RV is required to develop a Village Center and may develop several Neighborhood Centers. A 2,500 -acre Rural Village may yield a 250 -acre Village Center with approximately 750,000 -sq. ft. of commercial development. Neighborhood Centers within the same Rural Village may consist of 10 acres each with approximately 34,000 -sq. ft. of commercial development within each center. Future commercial development, as part of a Rural Village, may likely meet the projected commercial demand of the area's projected population. The existence of commercial zoning (C -4 & C -5, Flea Market site) adjacent to a non - commercially zoned and designated site (subject site zoned "A ") does not constitute or substantiate the need for new commercial approvals. • The proposed project is located in an area that contains significant vested approved developments that will add trips on an already failing link. There are no scheduled or funded improvements within the five -year planning period. Approval of this request to add 88,110 12 Agenda Item 4K square feet of commercial uses at the subject location is not consistent with policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. • The East of County Road 951 Study is presently underway. The Study will provide elected officials and County staff with an area -wide assessment of land use needs, including commercial square feet. Until complete, any approval of commercial development east of C.R. 951 may be premature. XI. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's office. XII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CP- 2005 -10 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to transmit to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. However, should the CCPC choose to recommend transmittal, staff recommends the following revisions to the proposed subdistrict (single underline text is added, as proposed by petitioner; double underline text is added, as proposed by staff; double text is deleted, as proposed by staff): 2. Naples Big Cypress Commerce Center Subdistrict [new text, page 54] Development L at the Subdistrict shall comply with the following requirements and limitations e4t@4a: a. b. C. I e. f. The maximum gross floor area of all uses shall not exceed 88,110 square feet. 13 N [ol Agenda Item 4K zoled . Ai{e PParking lots shall be visually screened from views from U.S. 41 (Tamiami 14 Vanasse Daylor Urban Winning Project 80519.01 Landscape February 27, 2007, Z DpTLandscape ArcM1itecture / Civil Engineering iraflic Engineering To: Attendees of the Big Cypress Comprehensive Plan Amendment Meeting It Gc. LCOOD0366 From: Robin Meyer, AICP, VanasseDaylor Re: Traffic Impacts of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment As requested at the Neighborhood Information Meeting in January, the traffic analysis for Naples Big Cypress was as follows: • Analyses based on 9.8 acre with 9,000 sq ft/ac • Estimated about 276 PM Peak Hour net new trips • Directional Distribution estimated to be at or below 100 vph (vehicles per hour) • Report estimated that trips would be less than 10% of directional capacity • Based on historical growth trends using available data (2004), projected background traffic was projected to be within the roadway capacity • Same for projected total traffic • Studied intersections were projected to still operate within acceptable parameters A search of our records did not reveal any traffic analysis for the commercial property that is owned by the applicant to the north, so I cannot provide that information to you. If you need additional information please do not hesitate to contact me. Sincerely, Vanasse & Daylor, LLP Robin D. Meyer, AICP Director of Planning & Design cc: Michele Mosca, Collier County Planning . voc,' urh', J :.'Etii:4Tw::�n,.x!ee.S; #.iP6t � dl -0; uo: 12730 New Brittany Boulevard, Suite 600, Fort Myers, Florida 33907 T 239.437.4601 R 239.437.4636 w vandaycom PREPARED BY: OS A, AICP, CIPAL PLANNER C PREHENSIVE P ING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: DATE: 2 - /;6 -°� DATE: DAVID WEEKS, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED Y. 4 RANDALL COHEN, AICP, DIRECTOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: Agenda Item 4K DATE: OZ - _ Q 7 Gnitvt, . (7Yl • QL-04 _ Q -d [w o DATE: MARJURIE M. STUDENT-STIRLING ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: Z - 2-0 -o'} DATE: df p Jg(SVH K. SCHMI T, ADMINISTRATOR gOk4MUNITY DEVELOPMENT & IRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK P. STRAIN, CHAIRMAN Petition No: CP- 2005 -10 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007 CCPC Meeting Note: This petition has been advertised for the June 4, 2007, BCC Meeting. AGENDA ITEM 4L .S ',o e-r Cvl4l -tty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARINGDATE: MARCH 5, 2007 SUBJECT: PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -11: GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) I. AGENT /APPLICANT /OWNER: Agent: Thomas W. Ferguson, Esquire Ferguson Law Group 4265 Bonita Beach Road Bonita Fl. 34134 Applicant Joseph Townsend, Trustee 4815 10`h Avenue, SW Naples, Fl. 34116 Owners: Trust Owners • Joseph E. Townsend, 11150 Livingston Rd, Naples, Fl. 34105 • James and Jack Craft, 768 Commercial Blvd., Naples, Fl. 34104 • Paul A Cosentino, 9893 Coronado Lake Dr., Boynton Beach, FI.33437 • Julio C. and George M. Lopez, 8300 SW 64`h St, Miami, FI 33143 11. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject area of land, being approximately 42.5 acres in area, is identified in the application with a legal description as: The East 1/2 of the West 1/2 of Section 18, Township 51S, Range 27E and generally located on the north side of US Highway 41, East and 1,000 feet west of Trinity Place (see two maps that follow): 1 AGENDA ITEM 4L The FLUM of the FLUE of the GMP is outlined below relative to the subject .. i- INTDD■ LAND NNN YAP i_ o� .• 7� ,!� i 1_ 2 AGENDA ITEM 4L Ill. REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks an amendment to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) to change the designation of the site from "Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands" to "Rural Industrial District'. IV. PURPOSEMESCRIPTION OF THE PROJECT: The project consists of an application to amend the FLUM from "Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands" to "Rural Industrial District' for the 4 tracts of undeveloped contiguous land containing a total area of approximately 42.5 acres. The project proposes the construction of 500,000 square feet of industrial floor area with a split of 250,000 square feet of manufacturing floor space and 250,000 square feet of warehouse floor space. However, it should be understood that if this petition is approved as requested, any use(s) allowed in the Rural Industrial District could be deemed consistent with this District at the time of subsequent rezoning. V. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: A. Existing Conditions of the Site. Currently the subject parcels of land consist of a forested undeveloped area of 26.1 acres and 16.4 acre of open undeveloped lands that were mainly former agricultural (row crop) lands with the combined parcels having direct access onto East Tamiami Trail (US 41). The FLUM designation is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands. The existing zoning is A, Rural Agricultural District with Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands Overlay. B. Surrounding Lands. • North .... The land to the north of the subject property is undeveloped. The FLUM Designation to the north is Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands. The existing zoning to the north is A, Rural Agricultural District with Rural Fringe Mixed Use (RFMU) Receiving Lands Overlay. East..... Existing land use to the immediate east of the subject property is undeveloped land with some industrial development existing several hundred feet farther east, but not contiguous to the subject property. These existing uses include a concrete batching and concrete products manufacturing plant, storage buildings, `BBC Storage and Industrial Park ", and a motor coach resort park located in the TTRVC zoning district. The FLUM Designation to the immediate east is RFMU Receiving Lands, while an area farther to the east has a FLUM Designation of Rural Industrial District. The existing zoning to the immediate east is A, Rural Agriculture District with a RFMU Receiving Lands Overlay. Several hundred feet to the east, but not contiguous to the subject property, is land zoned I, Industrial District. • South... Existing land use is US 41 and undeveloped lands. The FLUM Designation is RFMU District Neutral Lands. The zoning to the south of the subject property is A, Rural Agricultural District with a RFMU Neutral Lands. • West.... Existing land use to the west of the subject property is agricultural and undeveloped. The existing FLUM Designation for the area to the west is RFMU Receiving Lands. The existing zoning of the area to the west of the subject property is A, Rural Agricultural District with a RFMU Receiving Lands Overlay. VI. STAFF ANALYSIS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT 3 AGENDA ITEM 4L Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements." Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue... the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and analysis for the applicant, although it is staff's responsibility to identify any shortcomings in the data and analyses during the consistency review process and to request additional information that is deemed essential in the review of the submitted request for a plan amendment. Any outstanding deficiencies with respect to data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the responsibility of the applicant. A detailed synopsis of the adequacy of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment is set forth with specificity below. RURAL FRINGE MIXED USE DISTRICT RECEIVING LANDS The subject property is shown on the FLUM in the "Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands" area which is quoted below from the FLUE of the GMP. Please see the Future Land Use Map in the "Geographic Location" section of this report. "B.Rural Fringe Mixed Use District The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is identified on the Future Land Use Map. This District consists of approximately 93,600 acres, or 7% of Collier County's total land area. Significant portions of this District are adjacent to the Urban area or to the semi - rural, rapidly developing, large -lot North Golden Gate Estates platted lands. Agricultural land uses within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District do not represent a significant portion of the County's active agricultural lands. As of the date of adoption of this Plan Amendment, the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District consists of more than 5,550 tax parcels, and includes at least 3,835 separate and distinct property owners. Alternative land use strategies have been developed for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, in part, to consider these existing conditions. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District provides a transition between the Urban and Estates Designated lands and between the Urban and Agricultural /Rural and Conservation designated lands farther to the east. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District employs a balanced approach, including both regulations and incentives, to protect natural resources and private property rights, providing for large areas of open space, and allowing, in designated areas, appropriate types, density and intensity of development. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District allows for a mixture of urban and rural levels of service, including limited extension of central water and sewer, schools, recreational facilities, commercial uses and essential services deemed necessary to serve the residents of the District. In order to preserve existing natural resources, 4 AGENDA ITEM 4L including habitat for listed species, to retain a rural, pastoral, or park -like appearance from the major public rights -of -way within this area, and to protect private property rights, the following innovative planning and development techniques are required and /or encouraged within the District. 1. Transfer of Development Rights (TDR), and Sending, Neutral, and Receiving Designations: The primary purpose of the TDR process within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is to establish an equitable method of protecting and conserving the most valuable environmental lands, including large connected wetland systems and significant areas of habitat for listed species, while allowing property owners of such lands to recoup lost value and development potential through an economically viable process of transferring such rights to other more suitable lands. Within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, residential density may be transferred from lands designated as Sending Lands to lands designated as Receiving Lands on the Future Land Use Map, subject to the provisions below. Residential density may not be transferred either from or into areas designated as Neutral Lands through the TDR process. A) Receiving Lands: Receiving Lands are those lands within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District that have been identified as being most appropriate for development and to which residential development units may be transferred from areas designated as Sending Lands. Based on the evaluation of available data, these lands have a lesser degree of environmental or listed species habitat value than areas designated as Sending and generally have been disturbed through development, or previous or existing agricultural operations. Various incentives are employed to direct development into Receiving Lands and away from Sending Lands, thereby maximizing native vegetation and habitat preservation and restoration. Such incentives include, but are not limited to: the TDR process; clustered development; density bonus incentives; and, provisions for central sewer and water. Within Receiving Lands, the following standards shall apply, except for those modifications that are identified in the North Belle Meade Overlay: 1. Maximum Density: The base residential density allowable for designated Receiving Lands is one (1) unit per five (5) gross acres (0.2 dwelling units per acre). The maximum density achievable in Receiving Lands through the TDR process is one (1) dwelling unit per acre. This maximum density is exclusive of the Density Blending provisions. Dwelling Units may only be transferred into Receiving Lands in whole unit increments (fractional transfers are prohibited). Once the maximum density is achieved through the use of TDR Credits, additional density may be achieved as follows: a) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall be allowed for each additional acre of native vegetation preserved exceeding the minimum preservation requirements set forth in Policy 6.1.2 of the CCME. b) A density bonus of no more than 10% of the maximum density per acre shall be allowed as provided in Policy 6.2.5(6)b of the CCME. 2. Clustering: Where the transfer of development rights is employed to increase residential with the following provisions: a) Consistent with the provisions of the Potable Water and Sanitary Sewer Sub - elements of this Plan, central water and sewer shall be extended to the project. Where County sewer or water services may not be available concurrent with development in Receiving Lands, interim private water and sewer facilities may be approved. b) The maximum lot size allowable for a single - family detached dwelling unit is one acre. c) The clustered development shall be located on the site so as to provide to the greatest degree practicable: protection for listed species habitat; preservation of R AGENDA ITEM 4L the highest quality native vegetation; connectivity to adjacent natural reservations or preservation areas on adjacent developments; and, creation, maintenance or enhancement of wildlife corridors. 3. Minimum Project Size: The minimum project size required in order to receive transferred dwelling units is 40 contiguous acres. 4. Emergency Preparedness: a) In order to reduce the likelihood of threat to life and property from a tropical storm or hurricane event, community facilities, schools, or other public buildings shall be designed to serve as storm shelters if located outside of areas that are likely to be inundated during storm events, as indicated on the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricane Map for Collier County. Impacts on evacuation routes, if any, must be considered as well. Applicants for new residential or mixed use developments proposed for Receiving Lands shall work with the Collier County Emergency Management staff to develop an Emergency Preparedness Plan to include provisions for storm shelter space, a plan for emergency evacuation, and other provisions that may be deemed appropriate and necessary to mitigate against a potential disaster. b) Applicants for new developments proposed for Receiving Lands shall work with the Florida Division of Forestry, Collier County Emergency Management staff, and the Managers of any adjacent or nearby public lands, to develop a Wildfire Prevention and Mitigation Plan that will reduce the likelihood of threat to life and property from wildfires. This plan will address, at a minimum: project structural design; the use of materials and location of structures so as to reduce wildfire threat; firebreaks and buffers; water features; and, the impacts of prescribed burning on adjacent or nearby lands. 5. Allowable Uses: Uses within Receiving Lands are limited to the following: a) Agricultural uses; b) Single- family residential dwelling units, including mobile homes where a Mobile Home Zoning Overlay exists. c) Multi- family residential structures shall be permitted under the Residential Clustering provisions of this plan, subject to the development of appropriate development standards to ensure that the transitional semi -rural character of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District is preserved. These development standards shall include, but are not limited to: building heights, design standards, buffers, and setbacks. d) Rural Villages, subject to the provisions set forth in II. B.3 of this element. e) Dormitories, duplexes and other types of staff housing, as may be incidental to, and in support of, conservation uses. f) Group housing uses subject to the following density /intensity limitations: • Family Care Facilities: 1 unit per 5 acres; • Group Care Facilities and other Care Housing Facilities: Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) not to exceed 0.45. g) Staff housing as may be incidental to, and in support of, safety service facilities and essential services; h)Farm labor housing limited to 10 acres in any single location: • Single family /duplex/mobile home: 11 dwelling units per acre; • Multifamily /dormitory: 22 dwelling units /beds per acre. i) Sporting and Recreational camps within which the lodging component shall not exceed 1 unit per 5 gross acres; j) Essential services. I AGENDA ITEM 4L k) Golf courses or driving ranges, subject to the following standards: (1)The minimum density shall be as follows: (a) For golf course projects, including both freestanding golf courses and golf courses with associated residential development: one TDR credit shall be required for every five (5) gross acres of land area utilized as part of the golf course, including the clubhouse area, rough, fairways, greens, and lakes, but excluding any area dedicated as conservation that is non - irrigated and retained in a natural state. Any residential development associated with the golf course shall have a minimum density of one (1) dwelling unit per five acres. (2) Golf courses shall be designed, constructed, and managed in accordance with the best management practices of Audubon International's Gold Signature Program and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. (3) In order to prevent the contamination of soil, surface water and ground water by golf course maintenance operations, golf courses shall comply with the best management for Golf Course Maintenance Departments, prepared by the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, May 1995. (4)To protect ground and surface water quality from fertilizer and pesticide usage, golf courses shall demonstrate the following management practices: (a) The use of slow release nitrogen sources; (b) The use of soil and plant tissue analysis to adjust timing and amount of fertilization applications; (c) The use of an integrated pest management program using both biological and chemical agents to control various pests; (d) The coordination of pesticide applications with the timing and application of irrigation water; (e) The use of the procedure contained in IFAS Circular 1011, Managing Pesticides for Golf Course Maintenance and Water Quality Protection, May 1991 (revised 1995) to select pesticides that will have a minimum adverse impact on water quality. (5) To ensure water conservation, golf courses shall incorporate the following in their design and operation: (a) Irrigation systems shall be designed to use weather station information and moisture - sensing systems to determine the optimum amount of irrigation water needed considering soil moisture and evapotranspiration rates. (b) As available, golf courses shall utilize treated effluent reuse water consistent with Sanitary Sewer Sub - Element Objective 1.4 and its policies; (c) Native plants shall be used exclusively except for special purpose areas such as golf greens, fairways, and building sites. Within these excepted areas, landscaping plans shall require that at least 75% of the trees and 50% of the shrubs be freeze - tolerant native Floridian species. At least 75% of the required native trees and shrubs shall also be drought tolerant species. (6) Stormwater management ponds shall be designed to mimic the functions of natural systems: by establishing shorelines that are sinuous in configuration in order to provide increased length and diversity of the littoral zone. A Littoral shelf shall be established to provide a feeding area for water dependent avian species. The combined length of vertical and rip- rapped walls shall be limited to 25% of the shoreline. Credits to the site preservation area requirements, on an acre- to- acre basis, shall be given for littoral shelves that exceed these littoral shelf area requirements AGENDA ITEM 4L (7) Site preservation and native vegetation retention requirements shall be the same as those set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. These areas are intended to provide habitat functions and shall meet minimum dimensions as set forth in the Land Development Code. These standards shall be established within one year. 1) Commercial development as permitted as part of an approved Rural Village. Within one year of adoption of these amendments, the County will develop appropriate standards for commercial development within Rural Villages, with particular focus on design, scale, and access provisions that will maintain the rural character or semi -rural character of the District. (m) Research and Technology Parks, consistent with the Research and Technology Park Subdistrict provided for in the Urban designation, and within an approved Rural Village. Within one year of adoption of these amendments, the County will develop appropriate standards for Research and Technology Parks within Rural Villages, with particular focus on design, scale, and access provisions that will maintain the rural character or semi -rural character of the District. n) Zoo, aquarium, botanical garden, or other similar uses. o) Public educational plants and ancillary plants. p) Facilities for the collection, transfer, processing and reduction of solid waste. q) Community facilities, such as, places of worship, childcare facilities, cemeteries, social and fraternal organizations. r) Sports instructional schools and camps. s) Earthmining, oil extraction and related processing. t) Asphalt and concrete batch - making plants. u) Travel trailer recreational vehicle parks, provided the following criteria are met: 1) The subject site is adjacent to an existing travel trailer recreational vehicle park site; and, 2) The subject site is no greater than 100% the size of the existing adjacent park site. v) Parks, open space, and recreational uses. w) Private schools. 6.Density Blending shall be permitted subject to the provisions set forth in the Density Rating System. 7.Open Space and Native Vegetation Preservation Requirements: a) Usable Open Space: Within Receiving Lands projects greater than 40 acres in size shall provide a minimum of 70% usable open space. Usable Open Space includes active or passive recreation areas such as parks, playgrounds, golf courses, waterways, lakes, nature trails, and other similar open spaces. Usable Open Space shall also include areas set aside for conservation or preservation of native vegetation and landscape areas. Open water beyond the perimeter of the site, street right -of -way, except where dedicated or donated for public uses, driveways, off - street parking and loading areas, shall not be counted towards required Usable Open Space. b) Native Vegetation Preservation: Native vegetation shall be preserved as set forth in CCME Policy 6.1.2. 8. Adjustment to Receiving Lands Boundaries. For all properties designated Receiving Lands where such property is contiguous to a Receiving Land /Sending Land boundary, the property owner may submit data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate that a change in the boundary is warranted. Within one year from the effective date of this provision, the County may initiate a Growth Management Plan amendment to consider such boundary changes upon a showing of the following: 8 AGENDA ITEM 4L — a) The property is contiguous to Sending Lands; b) Site specific environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property contains characteristics warranting a Sending designation; and c) An adjustment to the Receiving Lands boundary will not adversely affect the TDR program." In summary, it should be noted that the subject area is the largest of the Rural Fringe Receiving Areas and that it does permit the location of rural villages up to 2,500 acres and rural villages allow Research and Technology Parks as follows: "5. Research and Technology Park Subdistrict. The Research and Technology Park Subdistrict is intended to provide for a mix of targeting industry uses... aviation /aerospace industry, health and technology industry, information technology industry, and light, low environmental impact manufacturing industry -and non - industrial uses, designed in an attractive park -like environment where landscaped areas, outdoor spaces and internal interconnectivity provide for buffering, usable open space, and a network of pathways for the enjoyment of the employees, residents and patrons of the park. Research and Technology Parks shall be allowed as a subdistrict in the Urban Commercial District subject to the criteria set forth under Research and Technology Park Subdistrict in the Urban Mixed Use District." TRENDS IN DEVELOPMENT SURROUNDING THE SUBJECT TRACTS OF LAND • North: Agricultural • East: Agricultural and Industrial with the new BBC Storage and Industrial Park and newer storage buildings as examples • South: US 41 and Fiddler's Creek and Boyne South PUDs • West: Agricultural and Fiddler's Creek and Walnut Lake PUDs The granting of this amendment to the FLUM, in addition to acting as a "spot designation" within a large surrounding rural fringe receiving lands area, could encourage other future similar requests for amendments in this reach of US 41. In summary, such an action could put the integrity and permanency of the entire surrounding Rural Fringe Mixed Lands Receiving Area designation in jeopardy and subject to additional such requests in the future. UNDEVELOPED LAND ALREADY DESIGNATED AND AVAILABLE FOR INDUSTRIAL USAGE The applicant's "Analysis of Industrial Land Requirements ", submitted as part of the application, is limited to the areas of Collier County generally south of a line formed by 1 -75 (Alligator Alley) and Davis Boulevard. The study concluded: • "Our best estimate is that no more than 50 acres of land is available for an industrial type of land use, generally permitted by the industrial zoning district in the planning communities that comprise the south Collier County area as defined above ". • Year 2025 demands for additional industrial land for the study area would increase by 485 acres above the current existing and planned Industrial zoned property. This projection is based upon a projected industrial sector job increase from 8,036 to 13,822 in 2025 and the use of the current workers per acre ratio. 9 AGENDA ITEM 4L In summary, there is little question that there is and will continue to be a need for additional industrial designated land in Collier County as growth continues away from the coastal areas into Easter Collier County. However, the granting of amendments to the FLUM (and subsequent rezoning and other actions to effect development) is a matter of land use development policy of the CCPC and the BCC directed by the Growth Management Plan. Analysis of this request within the context of the Growth Management Plan (GMP) reveals several inconsistencies with the GMP as follows: 1. Existing Agriculture /Rural Designation /Rural Fringe Mixed Use Receiving Lands on the FLUM The intent of the existing Agricultural /Rural Designation in the FLUE is stated on page 52 as follows: "The Agricultural /Rural Land Use Designation is for those areas that are remote from the existing development pattern, lack public facilities and services, are environmentally sensitive or are in agricultural production. Urbanization is not promoted, therefore most allowable land uses are of low intensity in an effort to maintain and promote the rural character of these lands." In summary, the entire area surrounding the subject site, which is now in a Rural Fringe Mixed Use Receiving Lands designation on the FLUM, should be developed in a low intensity fashion with or without the use of Transfer of Development Rights as intended by the FLUE. Such development would preserve the Sending Lands within the Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area to the north of the subject site while facilitating the orderly development of the remaining Receiving Lands Areas along the north side of US 41 in this area of Collier County. The subject application does not promote and carry out the `Agriculture /Rural Land Designation" of the FLUE. 2. Compatibility of Proposed New Industrial Developments with Surrounding Land Uses. The applicant has requested the amendment to the FLUM for the subject properties from RFMU District Receiving Lands to Rural Industrial District. The following is an excerpt from the Growth Management Plan, page 70, which defines the Rural- Industrial District Classification: "C. Rural - Industrial District The Rural - Industrial District, which encompasses approximately 900 acres of existing industrial areas outside of Urban designated areas, is intended, and shall be reserved, for industrial type uses, subject to the Interim Development Provisions. Besides basic Industrial uses, limited commercial uses are permitted. Retail commercial uses are prohibited, except as accessory to Industrial uses. The C -5 Commercial Zoning District on the perimeter of lands designated Rural - Industrial District, as of October 1997, shall be deemed consistent with this Land Use District. All industrial areas shall have direct access to a road classified as an arterial or collector in the Traffic Circulation Element, or access may be provided via a local road that does not service a predominately residential area. No new industrial land uses shall be permitted in the Area of Critical State Concern. For the purposes of interpreting this policy, oil and gas exploration, drilling, and production (`oil extraction and related processing ") shall not be deemed to be industrial land uses and shall continue to be regulated by all applicable federal, state, and local laws. Intensities of use shall be those related to: a. Manufacturing; b. Processing; 10 AGENDA ITEM 4L C. Storage and warehousing; d. Wholesaling; e. Distribution; f. High technology; g. Laboratories; h. Assembly; i. Computer and data processing; j. Business services; k. Other basic industrial uses as described in the Industrial Zoning District in the Land Development Code; I. Business Park uses as described in the Business Park Zoning District of the Land Development Code; and m. Support commercial uses, such as child care centers and restaurants." The compatibility of the proposed GMP amendment was reviewed within the context of the Policy 5.4 of the FLUE which reads as follows: "Policy 5.4: New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses, subject to meeting the compatibility criteria of the Land Development Code (Ordinance 91 -102, adopted October 30, 1991, as amended." In summary, This proposed amendment to the FLUM may be deemed inconsistent with Policy 5.4 as follows: a. The applicant indicates that the proposed usage of the 42.5 acre site would be to accommodate businesses in the following industries: i. Construction ii. Manufacturing iii. Transportation iv. Communications v. Public utilities vi. Wholesale trade The proposed Rural Industrial Land Use Map designation and ultimate I, Industrial Zoning and subsequent development for the 42.5 acre area in question may be compatible with the already existing manufacturing and storage business developments several hundred feet to the east. However, the proposed expansion of similar industrial uses on this site may well result in the establishment of industrial uses incompatible with the immediately adjacent land to the north, east, and west and the surrounding major residential areas such as Marco Shores /Fiddler's Creek, Boyne South, Walnut Lakes, and Naples Research Golf Club. Of particular concern are the lands to the east between the subject site and the Industrial land farther to the east. b. The proposed industrial uses, typically involving the use of large trucks and heavy equipment, may not be complementary to the surrounding mixed use residential development which has occurred in recent years with surprising rapidity along the US 41 corridor to the south and west of the subject site. Should this request be granted, it is likely that a continuation of this potentially incompatible expansion of heavy industrial and commercial usage would occur in the future. AGENDA ITEM 4L ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Environmental Staff have no objection to the proposed amendment. Placing the subject property in the Rural Industrial District will have little or no effect on environmental issues /requirements. Selection of preserve areas will be in accordance with Policies 6.1.2 and 6.2.5 of the CCME, and applicable sections of the Land Development Code. Listed wildlife species issues will be reviewed in accordance with the Objectives and Policies under Goal 7 of the CCME. The listed wildlife species survey provided by the applicant identified a bald eagle nest in a tree located at the north end of the property. In accordance Policy 6.1.2, areas known to be utilized by listed species shall be selected first as part of the native vegetation retention requirement. Bald eagle nest protection zones, in accordance with the guidelines and recommendations of the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC), will be established around the nest. Restrictions on development and other activities within the nest protection zones will apply, unless the eagle nest is considered "abandoned" by the wildlife agencies. Support staff has produced an aerial of the site with both "primary" and "secondary' nest protection zones around the nest (see map which follows). Distance of nest protection zones identified by the wildlife agencies has changed recently, so two separate sets of primary and secondary nest protection zones are included on the aerial. Actual distance of nest protection zones will be determined by the wildlife agencies at the time the project is permitted/developed. Currently, distances of 330 feet and 660 feet are recognized by the agencies. East 41 Nest n...nzur "'��e� � 061ep O 550 1.1 G0 22W Feel 12 AGENDA ITEM 4L In accordance with the native vegetation preservation requirements for the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, fifty percent (50 %) of the native vegetation present, not to exceed twenty -five percent (25 %) of the total site area shall be preserved for sites located in the Rural Industrial District. Staff has been informed by Code Enforcement, that a clearing violation has occurred on -site. If the applicant elects to calculate the preserve requirement according to the area of native vegetation on -site, then the total area of native vegetation that existed on -site prior to the violation must be used in calculating this requirement. Otherwise, twenty -five percent (25 %) of the total site area shall be preserved. ARCHAELOGICAL IMPACTS This land area is located outside of the any area of historical or archaelogical probability and no cultural assessment of these properties is required. TRAFFIC CAPACITY /TRAFFIC CIRCULATION IMPACTS Transportation Planning Staff's review and analysis is as follows: Analysis: The subject property is located on the north side of US 41 approximately six miles east of County Road 951 and proposes 500,000 square feet of industrial floor space with a split of 250,000 square feet of manufacturing and 250,000 of warehousing. The project produces 2,058 daily gross new trips (2 -way) and 351 PM Peak Hour gross new trips. The existing and committed (E +C) network adjacent to this project consists of US 41 as a two lane section east and west of the property. The two lane section is not funded for improvement within the five year planning period. US 41 has directional peak hour service volume of 1,075 trips with a balance of -288 trips on the section closest to Collier Boulevard. The corresponding level of service is "F" and expected to degenerate further due to additional trips from vested developments in the study area and outside the study area affecting this link. Preliminary estimates have been received at $15 million for intersection improvements at grade and over $150 million for an ultimate improvement at the intersection of US 41 and CR /SR 951. No additional parallel faculties have been approved through an accepted corridor study at this time. The study indicates that the project build out to be 2007 which is short of the five year planning period required in land use applications. Conclusion: The proposed project is located in an area that contains significant vested approved developments that will put additional trips on the failing link which is not scheduled or funded for improvements within the five year planning period. Therefore the additional 500,000 square feet of industrial uses is not consistent with policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Recommendation: It is recommended that the application be denied due to a lack of roadway capacity existing and projected within the five year planning period and beyond. PUBLIC FACILITY IMPACTS • Potable Water. Public Utilities has advised that this project location is within the Collier County Water Service Area and subject to the conditions associated with a Water Availability letter from the Collier County Utilities Division. The project shall be required to comply with the current Utilities Ordinance No. 2004 -31. The South County Water Treatment Plant will supply the property's 13,500 gpd demand. The total plant capacity is 20 mgd with water provided by a 12" water main that is located in the southwest side of US 41. Utility construction will be designed and constructed and made subject to County requirements to provide service to the property. 13 AGENDA ITEM 4L Sanitary Sewer. Public Utilities has advised that this project location is within the Collier County Sanitary Sewer Service Area and subject to the conditions associated with a Sewer Availability letter from the Collier County Utilities Division. A 16" force main northeast of US 41 will provide service to the property and connect it to the South County Water Reclamation Facility. Drainage. The proposed development will be designed to comply with the 25 year, 3 day storm standards and other applicable standards of the LDC and other jurisdictional agencies including the SFWMD. Solid Waste. The established Level of Service (LOS) for solid waste is two years of lined cell capacity at previous three years average tons per capital disposal rate with 10 years of permitted landfill capacity available for Collier County solid waste disposal. The applicant did not make a projection of solid waste generation expected by the proposed 500,000 square feet of manufacturing and warehousing floor area proposed for this site. The project is subject to the conditions associated with a Solid Waste Availability Letter from the Solid Waste Department. Parks. The proposed development will not increase the population density and, therefore, will have no affect on the community and the regional parks. Arterial and Collector Roads. A Traffic Impact Statement was prepared by the applicant, reviewed by the Collier County Transportation staff and has been addressed in the previous section. VI. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS The following are findings and conclusions as a result of the reviews and analyses of this request: 1. East of 951 Study. Due to the East of 951 Study, now underway, this amendment may be premature at this time. 2. The existing surrounding land usage near the subject site is primarily agricultural. Farther to the south and west, somewhat removed from the subject property, are residential developments. Manufacturing and storage uses exists one lot removed to the east from the subject property. 3. The trends in land development near the subject site is agricultural /vacant to the north, residential development to the south and west, and limited additions to manufacturing and storage uses to the east (several hundred feet east of the subject property). 4. The Future Land Use Map for the area surrounding the subject 42.5 acre site is for low density development through the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands with an emphasis toward future low density residential usage for the surrounding Receiving Lands and conservation of the Sending Lands located farther north of US 41 in the Belle Meade Natural Resource Preservation Area. 5. The Permanency of the existing boundary of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Receiving District will be greatly compromised and put into question should the "spot' change in the boundary be granted for this specific request. This would be particularly the case because the very large surrounding area of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use Receiving District was recently studied and found to have similar environmental characteristics as the subject site and, thus, classified in the same district on the FLUM as the subject site. 6. Vacant land already designated and available for industrial use in South Collier County (south of Alligator Alley /Davis Boulevard) may be limited in supply. However, there may well be better locations in the County with much better access for the heavy intensity of land use which would undoubtedly be generated by businesses in manufacturing, construction, wholesale, public utilities, transportation, etc. 14 AGENDA ITEM 4L 7. Public facilities, including sanitary sewer, potable water, drainage, solid waste, etc. can serve this site. However, the extension of such may be premature and encourage even more urban sprawl in this reach of US 41 while promoting the development of industrial uses potentially incompatible and not complementary with the mixed use residential trends of development in this reach of US 41. 8. As viewed within the context of the Growth Management Plan the granting of this request would likely lead to Industrial Zoning and industrial development of an intensity that, over time, may create severe incompatibilities with the surrounding residential development. Such incompatibilities include, but are not limited to, noise, air pollution, heavy truck traffic and turning movements, etc. 9. Transportation The proposed project is located in an area that contains significant vested approved developments that will put additional trips on the failing link which is not scheduled or funded for improvements within the five year planning period. Therefore the additional proposed 500,000 square feet of industrial uses is not consistent with policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the GMP. Accordingly, the Transportation Department has recommended denial of the application due to a lack of roadway capacity existing and projected within the five year planning period and beyond. VIII. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATON MEETING ON JANUARY 16.2007 The agent/applicant duly advertised, noticed and held the required NIM on January 16, 2007, at 5:30pm. The meeting was held at St. Finbarr's Mission, 13520 E. Tamiami Trail, Naples, Florida. Two members of the public attended along with the applicant's team and county staff. The discussion included an expressed interest by one person to see more restaurants and entertainment in the vicinity. Another person said his interest lay in acquiring surrounding property to develop. The staff project planner provided a written document which explained the existing GMP designation on the property and proposed GMP designation. No one expressed any objections to the proposed GMP amendment. IX. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL RECOMMENDATION The Environmental Council does not normally review this type of application. X. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the Office of the Collier County Attorney. XI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION In view of the analyses provided within this report, staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward Petition CP- 2005 -11 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation not to transmit to the Department of Community Affairs. 15 Agenda Item 4M Co er Go-rrnty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MARCH 5, 2007 RE: PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -12, NORTH BELLE MEADE SPECIAL USE AREA SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNERS: Agent: Richard D. Yovanovich Goodlette, Coleman & Johnson, P.A 4001 North Tamiami Trail, Suite 300 Naples, FL 34103 Agent: D. Wayne Arnold, AICP Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey Bonita Springs, FL 34134 Agent: John G. Vega 201 Eighth Street South, Suite 207 Naples, FL 34102 Applicant and Owner: Francis D. and Mary Pat Hussey, Jr. 1350 Spyglass Lane Naples, FL 34102 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property contains 950 acres more or less and is located approximately four miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), lying north of 1 -75. The property lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning Community in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The subject property is commonly known as the HHH Ranch. (See Attachment "A ") - 1 - Agenda Item 4M REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element (FLUE), Future Land Use Map (FLUM), and Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan to [change the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District designation in order to] establish the North Belle Meade Special Use Subdistrict where earth mining, asphalt and concrete batch plants and their related activities, oil extraction and related processing could be conducted or operated in Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, plus allowing other land uses permitted by right, other conditional uses, and other rights permitted on lands designated as Sending Lands, all as permitted uses — so as to accommodate a future rezone to allow such operations. The proposed text change adds new Subdistrict language in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District [showing the petitioner's proposed amendments in strike - through /underline format, while current Growth Management Plan language appears in plain text] as follows: CP- 2005 -12 (part 1 of 3) [page 69] II. Agricultural /Rural Designation B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 4. North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict The North Belle Meade Special Use Area does contain environmentally sensitive lands: however, historic development and drainage due to development of Golden Gate Estates and I- 75 have lessened the environmental sensitivity of these lands. The North Belle Meade Special Use Area contains significant deposits of hard limestone, which provides source material for road construction and building materials. The intent of the North Belle Meade Special Use Area is to permit all uses permitted and conditional and rights permitted on lands designated as sending lands, as well as earth mining, retained in accordance with Policy 6.1.2 of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element. 45. Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards 2- Agenda Item 4M The proposed text amendment revises acreage figures for the North Belle Meade Overlay, as follows: CP- 2005 -12 (part 2 of 3) [page 75] B. North Belle Meade Overlay 1. In General The North Belle Meade area is surrounded by Golden Gate Estates to the north, east, and west and 1 -75 to the south. This area, designated as the North Belle Meade Overlay, comprises +4 22.5 sections of land (1, t 14,602 acres, depending on the size of individual sections) and is depicted on the Future Land Use Map and North Belle Meade Overlay Map. The ... [unchanged to end of entry.] This petition also seeks to amend the GMP's Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME) to reduce the amount of native vegetation retained specifically for land inside the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict. CP- 2005 -12 (part 3 of 3) [page 17] [CCME] Policy 6.1.2 For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as designated on the FLUM, native vegetation shall be preserved on site through the application of the following preservation and - vegetation retention standards and criteria: Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards: a. Receiving Lands: A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the total site area shall be preserved. b. Neutral Lands: A minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area shall be preserved, except that, for Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, located in the North Belle Meade Overlay, a minimum of 70% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 70% of the total site area, shall be preserved. C. Non -NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 80% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Rating provisions of the FLUE; d. NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 90% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE. e. Provisions a. through d. above shall also be consistent with the wetland protection policies set forth under CCME Objective 6.2. f. In order to ensure reasonable use and to protect the private property rights of owners of smaller parcels of land within lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District on the Future -3- Agenda Item 4M Land Use Map, including nonconforming lots of record which existed on or before June 22, 1999, for lots, parcels or fractional units of land or water equal to or less than five (5) acres in size, native vegetation clearing shall be allowed, at 20% or 25,000 square feet of the lot or parcel or fractional unit, whichever is greater, exclusive of any clearing necessary to provide for a 15 -foot wide access drive up to 660 feet in length. For lots and parcels greater than 5 acres but less than 10 acres, up to 20% of the parcel may be cleared. This allowance shall not be considered a maximum clearing allowance where other provisions of this Plan allow for greater clearing amounts. These clearing limitations shall not prohibit the clearing of brush or under - story vegetation within 200 feet of structures in order to minimize wildfire fuel sources. g. Within Receiving and Neutral lands where schools and other public facilities are collocated on a site, the native vegetation retention requirement shall be 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the site. h. North Belle Meade Special Use Overlay: A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION: Existina Conditions: The subject property is currently zoned A, Rural Agricultural - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District, Sending Lands - NBMO, North Belle Meade Overlay District. The property contains 950 acres more or less located approximately three to four miles east of Collier Boulevard (CR 951), lying north of 1 -75. The property lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning Community in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49 South, Range 27 East, Collier County, Florida. The subject property is commonly known as the HHH Ranch. The current Future Land Use Designation is Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, and North Belle Meade Overlay. Surrounding Lands: N - ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural - MHO, Mobile Home Overlay District - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District - NBMO, North Belle Meade Overlay District Undeveloped, Vacant & Residential Land Uses FLUM DESIGNATION: Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, and, North Belle Meade Overlay S- ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District - NBMO, North Belle Meade Overlay District — NRPAO, Natural Resource Protection Area Overlay DESCRIPTION: Blackburn Road, the north -side frontage road along 1 -75; 1 -75 roadway; then undeveloped & vacant lands rm Agenda Item 4M FLUM DESIGNATION: Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands; Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA), beyond E - ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District - NBMO, North Belle Meade Overlay District Undeveloped & Vacant Lands FLUM DESIGNATION: Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands, part, and North Belle Meade Overlay; Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, part, and North Belle Meade Overlay; North Belle Meade NRPA, beyond W - ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural - MHO, Mobile Home Overlay District - RFMUO, Rural Fringe Mixed Use Overlay District - NBMO, North Belle Meade Overlay District DESCRIPTION: Agricultural, Residential and Undeveloped Vacant Land Uses; The stub ends of Markley Avenue and Washburn Road meet the subject property, while Inez Road appears to run along a segment of its westerly boundary FLUM DESIGNATION: Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, and North Belle Meade Overlay STAFF ANALYSIS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements." Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue... the Department will review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and analysis for the applicant, although it is staff's responsibility to identify any shortcomings in the data and analyses during the consistency review process and to request additional information that is deemed essential in the review of the submitted request for a plan amendment. Any outstanding deficiencies with respect to data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the 5- Agenda Item 4M responsibility of the applicant. A detailed synopsis of the adequacy of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment is set forth with specificity below. ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS Natural Resources The Environmental Analysis of Alternatives to Rock Mining in Collier County submitted by Synecological Analysts, Inc. with this petition is dated November 2004 — is subtitled, Analysis of the Practicability of Non -Lee County Alternative Sources to Supply the Area's Demand for Basic Construction Materials (see application packet Exhibit V.D.5, part). The analysis reports that, "[t]here are only a few locations in the State with geological formations that produce coarse crushed stone that meets FDOT specifications. The availability of Florida's limestone deposits is diminished by urbanization, environmental restrictions, and public opposition to mining. All available deposits in Florida are presently being mined. From the standpoint of quality and yield per acre, Collier County is the most productive mining area locally. Alternative locations in the State could not economically replace Collier County production ". The Analysis points out that, "[a]t this time, we know of no practicable technological alternatives to Collier County rock, and none have been suggested" and draws a lengthy conclusion. Their summarizing comments say that, "[p]remature curtailment of Collier mining would cause extreme disruption of southwest Florida's construction industry and would vastly increase the cost of essential public and private infrastructure ". In their Limerock Mining Resources in Collier County (see application packet Exhibit V.D.S, part), the petitioner provides an overview of `what -if scenarios for sources and availability of these materials. Application materials include a map series illustrating the distribution of mines and mine -able materials, planning and zoning constraints, and other supporting data. Environmental: In their Mining Fact Sheet (see application packet Exhibit V.D.S, part), the petitioner lists the "positive effects of mining without development" as opportunities to: ► Ensure sufficient water supply for future generations ► Restore hydrology ► Create aquifer recharge areas ► Can reestablish historic natural sheet flow ► Protect land from development ► Create conservation lands, and ► Create habitat and food sources for all species This Fact Sheet provides an overview of the supply and demand story for these materials. Application materials include a map series illustrating the distribution of mines and mine -able materials, planning and zoning constraints, and other supporting data (see application packet Exhibit V.D.S, following fact sheets). Agenda Item 4M Listed Species: The Protected Species Survey (PSS) submitted by Hoover Planning and Development, Inc. with this petition is dated May 2006 (see application packet Exhibit V.C.1), representing field time logged from May 2004 to present. Particular attention was given to the presence or absence of wading birds, gopher tortoise, red cockaded woodpeckers, and Big Cypress fox squirrels. Species observed on the subject property included: Little Blue Heron, Snowy Egret, White Ibis and Wood Stork, among wading birds; Red - Cockaded Woodpecker and American Kestrel among other birds; Big Cypress fox squirrels and Florida Black Bear (not directly observed) among mammals; Gopher Tortoise among reptiles; Common Wild Pine and Butterfly Orchids among plants. Listed Species were observed utilizing the subject property, as follows: Red - Cockaded Woodpecker cavity trees and foraging habitat, with additional data collected on nesting activity and fledging; Gopher tortoise in an upland area; and, listed wading birds in the deeper wetlands. FLUCCS communities identified on the site are: - Approx. 53 acres of Hydric Unimproved Pasture - Approx. 54 acres of Saw Palmetto - Approx. 169 acres of Pine Flatwoods - Approx. 25 acres of Pine Flatwoods with Cabbage Palm - Approx. 45 acres of Dead Pines with Cabbage Palm - Approx. 10 acres of Pop Ash & Willow Slough - Approx. 12 acres of Hydric Melaleuca - Approx. 144 acres of Cypress - Approx. 88 acres of Cypress /Unimproved Pasture - Approx. 19 acres of Brazilian Pepper Invaded Cypress - Approx. 2 acres of Cypress with Cabbage Palm - Approx. 301 acres of Pine - Cypress- Cabbage Palm - Approx. 13 acres of Melaleuca Invaded Pine- Cypress- Cabbage Palm - Approx. 1 acre of Freshwater Marsh - Approx. 1 acre of Mixed Wetland Forest - Approx. 4 acres of Disturbed Lands - Approx. 6 acres of Hydric Disturbed Lands (Fence Lines) These community acreage totals indicate only the quantity or distribution of habitat — and may not be indicative of the quality, or value, of certain habitat. Environmental Services Department staff conducted an exhaustive review of the PSS (Exhibit V.C.1) along with its associated map set, the EIS (Exhibit V.C.2, part), the Wildlife and Habitat Management Plan, and the Animal Response (to mining activities) Considerations report (Exhibit V.C.2, part), provided by the petitioners, and commented on the most relevant aspects, as follows: The parcels included in this petition link the western North Belle Meade Sending lands with the eastern North Belle Meade Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Sending lands. The site represents approximately 9% of the North Belle Meade Sending Lands (NRPA and non -NRPA) and contains the largest undeveloped parcels in them. 7- Agenda Item 4M Rural Fringe Sending Lands were designated as such because of their environmental sensitivity. From the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan: "Sending Lands are those lands that have the highest degree of environmental value and sensitivity and generally include significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. Sending Lands are located entirely within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.... Based upon their location, Sending Lands are the principal target for preservation and conservation." Objective 3 of the FLUE states, "Land Development Regulations have been adopted to implement this Growth Management Plan pursuant to Chapter 163.3202, F.S. in order to ensure protection of natural and historic resources,..." In order to implement that, Policy 3.1 states "Land Development Regulations have been adopted into the Land Development Code that contain provisions to implement the Growth Management Plan through the development review process and include the following provisions: b. Protect environmentally sensitive lands and provide for open space. This shall be accomplished in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District through various Land Use Designations that restrict higher intensity land uses..." CCME Policy 6.2.3(4) "Incompatible land uses are directed away from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands through an incentive based Transfer of Development Rights Program that allows land owners within these Sending Lands to transfer their residential density out of the Sending Lands to Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Receiving Lands. Incompatible land uses are also directed away from Sending Lands by restricting allowable uses. (Reference FLUE Rural Fringe Mixed Use District.) Finally, allowable uses within these lands are also subject to native vegetation retention and preservation standards of 80% to 90 %. (Reference CCME Policy 6.7.1x' Parcels included in this petition contain some of the largest tracts of wetlands remaining in the North Belle Meade which provide foraging habitat to many species of protected wading birds including wood storks. The vital uplands surrounding the wetlands are home to two active red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) clusters, the last of five left in the North Belle Meade. Many other listed species also utilize the site including Florida black bear, gopher tortoise, Big Cypress fox squirrel and Florida panther. A total of eleven protected species of plants and animals are known to utilize the property. Most of the additional uses requested (earth mining, asphalt and concrete batch - making plants, and related uses) are only allowed in Industrial and Rural Agricultural zoned areas throughout Collier County. These are highly intensive uses not suitable for environmentally sensitive areas. Among other concerns, there has not been much research, which staff is aware of, as to the effects of blasting near listed species. Also, Florida slash pine trees, which the red - cockaded woodpeckers depend on for nesting and foraging, are highly sensitive to disturbance. Exhibit IV.B of the petition states "...historic development and drainage due to development of Golden Gate Estates and 1 -75 have lessened the environmental sensitivity of these lands." According to the EIS provided, the majority of this site is native habitat and the amount of wetlands on site has not been formally determined by the permitting agencies, only the petitioner's consultants. Therefore, without validation by State and Federal permitting agencies, Agenda Item 4M Comprehensive Planning staff point out that the exact impact on wetlands and associated habitat for certain species has not been ascertained with absolute certainty. This project will impact approximately 250 acres of wetlands, if the consultant's evaluation is accurate. The petitioner plans on restoring the site to its natural condition, but two lakes totaling approximately 350 acres will remain which will offer little habitat benefit to the protected species currently utilizing the site. Comprehensive Planning staff adds that the lack of specificity lends itself to a high degree of discomfort when reviewing the totality of the petition and potential deleterious impacts on wetlands, habitat and species of concern. The proposal does not confine the mining use to any specific area or limit its size. The environmental sections of the submittal discuss wildlife benefits but do not identify any specific preserve areas. Reducing the Preservation requirement by half, as the petition proposes, would be closer to the Preservation requirements for Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving lands which were designated for more intense uses in less environmentally sensitive areas; hence a smaller amount of Preservation was required. The trucks hauling the excavation material [are proposed to] be traveling west through the southern portion of the Sending lands, which will require expansion of existing roadways to accommodate the over 400 trips per day expected for the operation. The increase in traffic of large trucks to the south would most likely adversely impact the RCWs. The north -south traffic of large trucks would also likely reduce the habitat value of the lands to the west of the project that are designated primary habitat by USFWS to panthers. The proposal shows locations of hard rock in Collier County, but the S.R. 846 mine has supposedly found hard rock on their site and this location is not represented on the graphics showing location of hard rock in the county. There could be other sources of hard rock in the county outside of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands. (Environmental Services) [s]taff recommends denial of this Growth Management Plan Amendment since it is in direct conflict with the creation and purpose of the Sending Lands designation and sections of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). Please note that the Environmental Services staff recommendation is based, in part, on the general premise that CCME Policy 1.1.6 specifies an equitable balance based on benefits and cost to public and private sector. There does not appear to be a balance of public and private interests in this proposal. The private interest of the gained use of mining does not seem to be offset by the permanent preservation and management of the un -mined portions of the property and potentially slightly less expensive source limestone for construction activities. This can only be viewed as a minor benefit to the public. It is directly of benefit in construction. This is not the only potential source, but is a practical source. Upon submittal of an updated RCW habitat management plan, the Environmental Services Department staff review added: Although it [management plan] will not be finalized until the time of development order _ issuance, The following comments for the resubmitted RCW habitat management plan are germane at this time, in consideration of CP- 2005 -12: Q Agenda Item 4M E. Mid -story control- This should include County prohibited exotics and the FLEPPC Category 1 list at a minimum. G. Roads- This section should specify that roads shall not go through a cluster and that roads will not be built during nesting season. H. Noise Control (2) No longer prohibits clearing within 400 feet of cavity trees. Otherwise, the plan meets the GMP requirements for consistency with the USFWS South Florida Multi- Species Recovery Plan, May 1999 as required by CCME Policy 7.1.2(2)(e) and also meets the requirements of the latest USFWS Recovery Plan for RCW, Private Lands Guidelines and slightly exceeds them by providing artificial nesting cavities. Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Analysis: The petitioner employed the firm of O. Grady Minor & Associates, P.A. to conduct a Traffic Impact Analysis for the proposed amendment. The subject property is located three to four miles east of Collier Boulevard, north of 1 -75, and proposes a hard rock earth mining operation. The project will produce an estimated 930 thousand cubic yards of excavated materials per year, during 250 days per year, hauled in trucks capable of holding 18 cubic yards per load. This calculates out to 414 daily gross new trips (2 -way) and 10 PM Peak Hour gross new trips. The findings concluded that the impact of project traffic volumes on the roadway network surrounding the project site is not significant ( "significant impact" is defined in Capital Improvement Element (CIE) Policy 1.1.2 as any amendment to the Comprehensive Plan that will generate a volume of traffic equal to or greater than 3% of the LOS of the impacted roadway). Additionally, all segments will operate at LOS standard or better and have excess peak hour capacity greater than the projected trip generation for the subject property. The TIS concludes that the roadway links analyzed, as part of the analysis, will not be significantly or adversely impacted by the resultant change to the Growth Management Plan and the Level of Service will not be degraded below acceptable standards for the roadway links analyzed. However, Transportation Planning staff provided the following Consistency Determination: Transportation Element Consistencv Determination: Transportation planning staff has reviewed this petition's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS). The TIS indicates that the project's impacts are not significant on Collier Boulevard, both northbound and southbound at 0.6 %. All links within the radius of development influence for the project will be below the significance test. (Significance test or significant impact is used as those terms are defined in the GMP.) For the purpose of this analysis, Transportation staff focused on the segment of Collier Boulevard CR -951 from Rattlesnake Hammock Road to Pine Ridge Boulevard in order to determine significance since this segment fronts and provides for the project's only access point. _10- Agenda Item 4M Transportation staff has determined that Petition CP- 2005 -12 is consistent with Transportation Element Policy 5.1 of the Growth Management Plan. Public Facilities Impact: The North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict property is not in the Collier County Water & Sewer District. Potable water and sanitary sewer services will not be provided by the District's systems. This project will not impact the County's existing Levels of Service Standards (LOSS). Development would use a private water well and on -site treatment system. Application materials did not provide information regarding the existing Level of Service Standards (LOSS), or document the impact(s) the proposed GMP amendment will have on that Standard, for drainage, solid waste and community and regional parks. Facilities review specialists with the Collier County Public Utilities Services reviewed application materials and provided the following comment: The Subdistrict is outside the Collier County Water and Sewer District current and future service areas in the Rural Fringe sending area, and therefore has no impact concerns. Appropriateness of Change: APPLICABILITY OF CHAPTER 163, FLORIDA STATUTES AND RULE 9J -5, FLORIDA ADMINISTRATIVE CODE Chapter 163.3177(6)(d) states, "[a] conservation element for the conservation, use, and protection of natural resources in an area, including air, water, water recharge areas, wetlands, waterwells, estuarine marshes, soils, beaches, shores, flood plains, rivers, bays, lakes, harbors, forests, fisheries and wildlife, marine habitat, minerals, and other natural and environmental resources. Local governments..." [Emphasis added.] Chapter 163.3177(11)(a) states, "[t]he Legislature recognizes the need for innovative planning and development strategies which will address the anticipated demands of continued urbanization of Florida's coastal and other environmentally sensitive areas, and which will accommodate the development of less populated regions of the state which seek economic development and which have suitable land and water resources to accommodate growth in an environmentally acceptable manner. The Legislature further recognizes the substantial advantages of innovative approaches to development which may better serve to protect environmentally sensitive areas, maintain economic viability of agricultural and other predominantly rural land uses, and to provide for the cost effective delivery of public facilities and services. [Emphasis added.] Chapter 163, is implemented by Florida Administrative Codes, and particularly Rule 9J -5. 11- Agenda Item 4M CP- 2005 -12 Rule 9J -5 Analvsis The administration of Chapter 9J -5 is set forth in Section 9J- 5.002, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). Section 9J- 5.002(2) pertains to the application of Chapter 9J -5. Section 9J- 5.002(2) acknowledges the varying complexities associated with local governments in Florida. The section enumerates a number of factors to assist local governments when applying the entirety of Chapter 9J -5 to specific situations, while taking into consideration the detail of the data and analyses, and the content of the goals, objectives and policies. In essence, the factors set forth provide local governments with some objective criteria without providing any weight for the factors in arriving at a final conclusion regarding a local government's comprehensive plan or a proposed plan amendment. Instead, Section 9J- 5.002(2)(h) states "[w]hether the provision at issue constitutes substantial progress over existing provisions regarding consistency with and furtherance of Chapter 163, Part II [Florida Statutes] ...... Section 9J- 5.002(2)(h) might appear to be a subjective balancing litmus test; however, arguably a provision at issue must be supported by adequate data and analysis. The primary factor under consideration in CP- 05 -12, the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict (Hussey), land use petition, involves natural resources in the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) Sending Lands. More specifically, Section 9J- 5.002(2)(c) requires a local government to evaluate "[t]he existence of natural resource features such as groundwater recharge areas, waterwells, wetlands, wildlife habitat, costal areas, areas subject to coastal flooding, and living marine resources." The language "such as" is not all encompassing which warrants further analysis of the entirety of Chapter 9J -5 to determine what other natural resources can be considered under this provision. Section 9J- 5.006(4)(b) indicates which natural resources must be included in a comprehensive plan's future land use map series. In addition to the natural resource features enumerated in Section 9J- 5.002(2)(c), Section 9J- 5.006(4)(b) requires a local government to include minerals and soils in its future land use map series. Furthermore, Section 9J- 5.013(a)(3) pertaining to a local government's conservation element requires a local government to identify and analyze "known sources of commercially valuable minerals." Section 9J- 5.003(71) defines minerals as "all solid minerals, including clay, gravel, phosphate rock, lime, shells (excluding live shellfish), stone, sand, heavy minerals, and any other rare earths, which are contained in the soils or waters of the state." A sound and viable argument can be made that the lime rock deposits situated under the Hussey property fall under the definition of what constitutes a mineral in the State of Florida. Therefore, the subject (Hussey) property has two competing natural resources. The first is habitat for the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker (RCW) and Florida Panther. The second competing natural resource is the large lime rock mineral deposits located beneath the subject property. Guidance in Chapter 9J -5 pertaining to what could be construed as competing natural resources is not provided with absolute certainty. Instead, Section 9J- 5.006(2)(b) pertaining to land use analysis requirements, requires the future land use element to include an analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant and undeveloped land in order to determine it suitability, including where available, natural resources. Therefore, sound data and analysis is required to ascertain the proper land use for the subject property. The possibilities are as follows: RFMUD Sending Lands with no changes — Retains habitat for the Red - Cockaded Woodpecker and Florida Panther. _ 12 _ Agenda Item 4M 2. RFMUD Sending Lands with lime rock mining as either a permitted or conditional use. 3. RFMUD Sending Lands with a hybrid solution negotiated between competing interests. A sound argument can be made that any of the three aforementioned possibilities could be feasible if supported by substantive data and analysis. If sound data and analysis exists between competing natural resources, it is well within the authority of the Board of County Commissioners to make a policy decision as to which possibility best serves the interests of Collier County. Please note that this is a balancing test that is subjective and would be open to interpretation by reviewing agencies and any possible party that is adversely affected. Therefore, it is highly likely that any change to the existing RFMUD provisions would result in a challenge and an administrative hearing would follow. An Administrative Law Judge would then make the determination if the county's proposed change to the RFMUD was consistent with Chapter 9J -5, FAC. Section 9J- 5.013(1)(a)3 pertains to identifying and analyzing natural resources, where present within the [County], including "known sources of commercially valuable minerals ". Subsection (1)(a)5(b) indicates that "the potential for conservation, use or protection" of these natural resources are to be identified. Section 9J- 5.013(2) pertains to conservation requirements for these natural resources. Subsection (2)(b)3 indicates that [the County] shall "conserve, appropriately use and protect minerals ", and Subsection (2)(c) requires [the County] to address implementation activities for — the "conservation, appropriate use and protection of areas suitable for extraction of minerals" and for the "restriction of activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife ". [ Emphasis added.] A thorough evaluation of the appropriate use and protection of the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict (Hussey) property for extraction of minerals must consider restricting activities which would adversely affect endangered and threatened species' survival. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: CP- 2005 -12 seeks to combine new site - specific Subdistrict planning provisions with select provisions of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, particularly those pertaining to Sending Lands. This combination would reintroduce certain now - prohibited land uses as they were permitted before Collier County adopted the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, District — including mining operations for extracting earth materials. Of particular interest is that part of the proposed amendment language which would allow all Sending Lands uses — whether previously allowed either as permitted uses by right or by conditional use — as permitted uses in the new Subdistrict. Of similar interest is the part of the proposal which adds earth mining and related uses — as permitted uses. This arrangement is a significant departure from present planning provisions. Though not presently allowed in Sending Lands, these uses require conditional use approval where they are allowed (e.g. RFMU Receiving Lands). [Emphasis added.] Whether the subject property remains eligible to participate in the Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program, should be considered. Both earth mining as a conditional use and 13- Agenda Item 4M subsequent residential development (at 1.d.u. /5 ac.) when mining ceased would have been allowed before Rural Fringe Mixed Use provisions were adopted. The Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, now allows the transfer of that residential density thru the TDR program, but no longer allows the earth mining. If left undeveloped, a maximum of 190 Base Severance TDR Credits could be derived from the 950 ace subject property, plus another 190 Early Entry TDR Bonus Credits. Then, up to 190 Environmental Restoration and Maintenance TDR Bonus Credits could be generated by applying a Restoration and Management Plan (RMP) to the property. Finally, up to 190 Conveyance TDR Bonus Credits could be generated by conveying land to a federal, state or local governmental agency. These TDR credits would be available to transfer to Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Receiving Lands or lands within the Urban Designated planning area according to the County's Density Rating System. Current Rural Fringe Mixed Use, Sending Lands provisions limit permitted uses to those most conducive to the degree of environmental value and sensitivity for significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species: • Agricultural land uses consistent with Florida's Right to Farm Act • Detached single - family residences at a one per forty -acre density • Habitat preservation and conservation areas • Passive parks and recreational uses • Sporting and recreational camps • Essential services necessary to ensure public safety, and to serve the other permitted uses • Oil and gas exploration. Conditional Uses which may be approved in Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands include: • Other public facilities and essential services not permitted by right • Commercial uses accessory to permitted uses • Oil and gas field development and production Conditional land uses must be planned with adequate protection of wetlands, listed species and their habitat. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands provisions further limit permitted uses where residential density is transferred away according to the TDR program to: • Agricultural land uses consistent with Florida's Right to Farm Act • Detached single - family residences at a one per forty -acre density (for portions not participating in TDR program) • Habitat preservation and conservation areas • Passive parks and recreational uses • Essential services necessary to ensure public safety, and to serve the other permitted uses • Oil extraction, and related processing, excluding earth mining CP- 2005 -12 seeks to remove the 950 acre Subdistrict area from the North Belle Meade Overlay, as reflected by the proposed revisions to the In General section, repeated below: -14- Agenda Item 4M B. North Belle Meade Overlay 1. In General The North Belle Meade area is surrounded by Golden Gate Estates to the north, east, and west and 1 -75 to the south. This area, designated as the North Belle Meade Overlay, comprises 4-44 22.5 sections of land ( 6,662 t 14.602 acres, depending on the size of individual sections) and is depicted on the Future Land Use Map and North Belle Meade Overlay Map. The ... [unchanged to end of entry.] If approved, this revision would be a clear matter of inconsistency. Staff finds that other subsections of the North Belle Meade Overlay will require similar acreage adjustments, if the In General section is amended. Subsection 4, Sending Areas, includes acreage figures, stating "[w]ithin the NBM Overlay are t 4,598 acres of land that are identified as Sending Areas... ". These NBM Overlay "Sending Areas" are generally coterminous with RFMU District "Sending Lands ". Removing acreage from the NBM Overlay would effectively remove the subject property from RFMU District — including the rights and privileges associated with Sending Lands. Given the construction of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District and the North Belle Meade Overlay components of the FLUE, staff believes it is unnecessary to revise these acreage figures. Staff also believes that the unintended consequence of severing the subject property's connection to Sending Lands provisions was not anticipated. Conservation & Coastal Management Element: CP- 2005 -12 seeks to reduce the amount of native vegetation retained and preserved on the 950 acre property from 80% to 40 %. Neighborhood Information Meeting Synopsis: The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F was conducted January 24, 2007, after the agent/applicant duly noticed and advertised the meeting. Approximately 35 people attended the NIM, held in the Oakridge Middle School cafeteria. Wayne Arnold from Q. Grady Minor represented the petitioner, giving an overview of the proposed Growth Management Plan amendment as well as the process. Attendees heard the following information: Mining earth materials would have been allowed on the subject property as a Conditional Use before the Rural Fringe Mixed Use district was created. Petitioners are well aware of the issues regarding Red - Cockaded Woodpeckers (RCW), Florida Panthers and other species, as well as the wetlands found on this property. Trucks will haul loads westbound, onto CR 951 via the landfill frontage road [Utilities Drive/White Lake Drive /Blackburn Avenue]. When asked whether a "Subdistrict" can be sunsetted, the petitioner's agent indicated the property would revert back to Sending Lands after being mined. N63 Agenda Item 4M When asked whether any parts of the property could be used as retention areas, to help relieve the flooding problem in North Belle Meade, the petitioner's agent was noncommittal. General information about the mining operation was given including: Total yield will be in the area of 45 million tons; anticipated number of truck trips per day is about 45 — ranging from zero trips on some days to as many as 300 on busier days. Petitioner commented that 90 % of the rock used in Collier County comes from mining sites located outside the County. Many of those in attendance strongly supported the proposed amendment. [Synopsis prepared by L. Koehler, Public Information Coordinator, and C. Schmidt, Principal Planner] [Staff notes that one item of correspondence concerning CP -05 -12 was received following this Neighborhood Information Meeting, with a copy attached hereto.] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: The petitioner has provided data and analysis in order to conduct the evaluation noted above, and staff review of these materials is reported herein. Based on our consideration the following factors are restated from above and summarized here: • Unsu000rtive Factors to Consider • It is in direct conflict with the creation and purpose of the Sending Lands designation and sections of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME). • The Subdistrict would reintroduce certain now - prohibited land uses as they were permitted before Collier County adopted the RFMU District while no information establishes justification for allowing all land uses as permitted uses. • Species observed utilizing the subject property [included] red - cockaded woodpecker cavity trees and foraging habitat, ...gopher tortoise in an upland area, and listed wading birds in the deeper wetlands. • Parcels included in this petition contain some of the largest tracts of wetlands remaining in the North Belle Meade which provide foraging habitat to many species of protected wading birds including wood storks. The vital uplands surrounding the wetlands are home to two active red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) clusters, the last of five left in the North Belle Meade. Many other listed species also utilize the site including Florida black bear, gopher tortoise, Big Cypress fox squirrel and Florida panther. A total of eleven protected species of plants and animals are known to utilize the property. • The increase in traffic of large trucks to the south would most likely adversely impact the RCWs... also likely reduce the habitat value of the lands to the west of the project that are designated primary habitat by USFWS to panthers. 16- Agenda Item 4M . Supportive Factors to Consider: • [Petitioners' study of alternatives to mining in Collier County indicates] there are only a few locations in the State with geological formations that produce coarse crushed stone that meets FDOT specifications. • [The same study states] from the standpoint of quality and yield per acre, Collier County is the most productive mining area locally. Alternative locations in the State could not economically replace Collier County production. • At this time, we [the Petitioners] know of no practicable technological alternatives to Collier County rock, and none have been suggested. • Premature curtailment of Collier mining would cause extreme disruption of southwest Florida's construction industry and would vastly increase the cost of essential public and private infrastructure. • CCME Policy 1.1.6 specifies an equitable balance based on benefits and cost to public and private sector. • The "positive effects of mining without development' are opportunities to: - Ensure sufficient water supply for future generations - Restore hydrology - Create aquifer recharge areas - Reestablish historic natural sheet flow - Protect land from development - Create conservation lands, and - Create habitat and food sources for all species • The traffic generated by the proposed land use does not significantly impact Collier Boulevard and adjacent roadway segments. • Chapter 163, F.S. — recognizes the need for innovative planning and development strategies which will address the anticipated demands of continued urbanization of Florida's coastal and other environmentally sensitive areas, protect environmentally sensitive areas... and provide for the cost effective delivery of public facilities and services. • Section 9J -5, F.A.C....indicates that [the County] shall conserve, appropriately use and protect minerals, and areas suitable for extraction of minerals, and [restrict] activities known to adversely affect the survival of endangered and threatened wildlife. • The appropriate use and protection of the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict property... must consider restricting activities which would adversely affect endangered and threatened species' survival. • Particular attention was given to the presence or absence of wading birds, gopher tortoise, red- cockaded woodpeckers, and Big Cypress fox squirrels. - 17- Agenda Item 4M The RCW habitat management plan should include [mid -story control of] County prohibited exotics, roads [that do] not go through a cluster and [will not] be built during nesting season, and [noise control by prohibiting] clearing within 400 feet of cavity trees. The [RCW habitat management] plan meets requirements for consistency with the... Florida Multi- Species Recovery Plan... and the latest USFWS Recovery Plan for RCW, Private Lands Guidelines and slightly exceeds them. e The exact impact on wetlands and associated habitat for certain species has not been ascertained with absolute certainty. Sending Lands provisions limit permitted uses to those most conducive to the degree of environmental value and sensitivity for significant wetlands, uplands, and habitat for listed species. e Conditional land uses must be planned with adequate protection of wetlands, listed species and their habitat. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends denial of CP- 2005 -12 as proposed. Sound planning principles and practices however, indicate that a proper balance of appropriate uses could be achieved between an earth mining operation and the sensitive natural areas and habitat it would impose upon, provided with the appropriate set of revisions, stipulations and conditions. If the Planning Commission wishes to make a recommendation for approval to transmit the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict to the Florida Department of Community Affairs, staff recommends the following revisions and stipulations: Staff Report revision on 5118107. As reported at the CCPC hearing, certain stipulations were prepared before the EAC considered CP -05 -12 but were not included at that time as they addressed non - environmental matters, or, other stipulations were written by staff in consideration of EAC discussions and their recommendation. This resulted with the staff recommendation of the earth mining operation being presented to the CCPC with additional stipulations lettered "f" through "j ", as shown below. The revised text amendment [showing the staff's revisions in double strike - through /double underline format], to read as follows: (part 1 of 3) II. Agricultural /Rural Designation B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District ME [page 69] Agenda Item 4M 4. North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict The North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict comprises approximately 950+ acres located in Sections 29, 31 and 32, Township 49 South. Range 27 East. The 019414-Belle- AAeade Seeeiar•Idsa+4►ea Subdistrict represents a Sanding Lands transitional area located between lands designated Seendina and those designated Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) on the Future Land Use Map. The Subdistrict does contain environmentally sensitive lands: however, historic davelearaer# land uses and drainage due to development of Golden which provides source material for road construction and building materials. Ssending Liands rao- w@4-as The Subdistrict also allows earth mining oil extraction and related • 5• WW• . •• iF.73%L•• ri• .rolil7lTAi-M _. •�. �._ �.� �. �•_�• • • •u u• U • WRI, Nq i I ism vi7j Lij - • �• .•• eTi. i u O- .••. • • �• . _ rg_ Agenda Item 4M m6nong-related activity areas will be measured frarilinliMH i =-a reservatiot. iot fromAh-e prol2ertybounda[y- (Recommended at CCPC) ... . .�_. ►.. .i .. .i a .. .� ,�.. i .... u'..... ... ... r. �. . r . .. .-.-1.-1 .. . • - T.-. .O O.1 - . .a m- -�..�-. �. . ... -.. Note: If the CCPC considers recommending limited participation in the County's TDR program, instead of staffs recommended prohibition [paragraph b., above], staff suggests an alternate paragraph b., as follows: ma 45. Exemptions from the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Development Standards (part 2 of 3) [page 75] B. North Belle Meade Overlay 1. In General [removed double s -t of entire entry & made applicable only to petitioner's text] The North Belle Meade area is surrounded by Golden Gate Estates to the north, east, and west and 1 -75 to the south. This area, designated as the North Belle Meade Overlay, comprises ± 24 � sections of land (± 15,552 44 8 acres, depending on the size of individual sections) and Fs depicted on the Future Land Use Map and North Belle Meade Overlay Map. The ... [unchanged to end of entry.] (part 3 of 3) [CCME] Policy 6.1.2 [page 17] For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as designated on the FLU M, native vegetation shall be preserved on site through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria: Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards: _. a. Receiving Lands: A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the total site area shall be preserved. -21- Agenda Item 4M b. Neutral Lands: A minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area shall be preserved, except that, for Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, located in the North Belle Meade Overlay, a minimum of 70% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 70% of the total site area, shall be preserved. C. Non -NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 80% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Rating provisions of the FLUE; d. NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 90% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE. e. Provisions a. through d. above shall also be consistent with the wetland protection policies set forth under CCME Objective 6.2. f. In order to ensure reasonable use and to protect the private property rights of owners of smaller parcels of land within lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District on the Future Land Use Map, including nonconforming lots of record which existed on or before June 22, 1999, for lots, parcels or fractional units of land or water equal to or less than five (5) acres in size, native vegetation clearing shall be allowed, at 20% or 25,000 square feet of the lot or parcel or fractional unit, whichever is greater, exclusive of any clearing necessary to provide for a 15 -foot wide access drive up to 660 feet in length. For lots and parcels greater than 5 acres but less than 10 acres, up to 20% of the parcel may be cleared. This allowance shall not be considered a maximum clearing allowance where other provisions of this Plan allow for greater clearing amounts. These clearing limitations shall not prohibit the clearing of brush or under - story vegetation within 200 feet of structures in order to minimize wildfire fuel sources. g. Within Receiving and Neutral lands where schools and other public facilities are collocated on a site, the native vegetation retention requirement shall be 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the site. h. North Belle Meade Soecial Use Area Subdistrict: M Main 22- Agenda Item 4M Prepared By: Date: Corby L. Schmidt, Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By: Date: David C. Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By: Date: Randall J. Cohen, AICP, Director Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By: Date: Marjorie M. Student - Stirling Assistant County Attorney Office of the Collier County Attorney — Approved By: Date: Joseph K. Schmitt, Administrator Community Development and Environmental Services Division PETITION NO.: CP- 2005 -12 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007 CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 4, 2007 BCC Meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, Chairman 23- Agenda Item 4M ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION: The Collier County Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) considered CP- 2005 -12 on March 7, 2007. EAC members voted (5 -2) to recommend approval with revised stipulations, generally: • Night hauling is not prohibited • 80% minimum native vegetation retention requirement total, with 55% on -site • 400 ac. maximum total mined area • Land uses limited to 3 permitted uses — earth mining, asphalt and concrete batch - making plants • Allow full participation in the TDR program, provided all proceeds go to an endowed fund specifically for vegetation and habitat preservation and improvement both on -site and off -site, as otherwise required • Areas not affected by earthmining are to be placed in a conservation easement • Oversized littoral zones, of no less than fifteen percent (15 %) of each lake's surface acreage, are to be established when excavations become lakes • Reduce noises produced by mining and mining - related activities, including truck traffic, and hauling, especially during RCW nesting seasons • No residential development is allowed on the entirety of the subject property • No road building activities will occur during RCW nesting seasons • Earth mining, asphalt and concrete batch - making plants are allowed without Conditional Use approval, as permitted uses in the Subdistrict • TDR credits may be derived from excavated (lake) areas STAFF UPDATE: Staff's recommendation for denial has not changed. However, if the Planning Commission wishes to make a recommendation of approval to transmit the North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict to the Florida Department of Community Affairs in accordance with the EAC recommendation, staff has incorporated the EAC's revisions into staff's previous recommended stipulations and revisions to the petitioner's text. The revised text amendment [showing the staff's revisions in double strike - through /double underline format, and EAC recommendation -based revisions in bold], to read as follows: (part 1 of 3) [page 69] II. Agricultural /Rural Designation B. Rural Fringe Mixed Use District 4. North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict lands designated 5Agnding and those designated Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) on the Future Land Use Mao. -24- Agenda Item 4M (part 2 of 3) [page 75] B. North Belle Meade Overlay 1. In General [removed double s -t of entire entry & made applicable only to petitioner's text] The North Belle Meade area is surrounded by Golden Gate Estates to the north, east, and west and 1 -75 to the south. This area, designated as the North Belle Meade Overlay, comprises ± 24 22,6 sections of land (± 15,552 d-0�69 acres, depending on the size of individual sections) and is depicted on the Future Land Use Map and North Belle Meade Overlay Map. The ... [unchanged to end of entry.] (part 3 of 3) [CCME] Policy 6.1.2 [page 17] For the County's Rural Fringe Mixed Use District as designated on the FLU M, native vegetation shall be preserved on site through the application of the following preservation and vegetation retention standards and criteria: Preservation and Native Vegetation Retention Standards: a. Receiving Lands: A minimum of 40% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the total site area shall be preserved. b. Neutral Lands: A minimum of 60% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 45% of the total site area shall be preserved, except that, for Section 24, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, located in the North Belle Meade Overlay, a minimum of 70% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 70% of the total site area, shall be preserved. C. Non -NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 80% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Rating provisions of the FLUE; d. NRPA Sending Lands: Calculated at the higher value of 90% of the native vegetation present, or as may otherwise be permitted under the Density Blending provisions of the FLUE. e. Provisions a. through d. above shall also be consistent with the wetland protection policies set forth under CCME Objective 6.2. f. In order to ensure reasonable use and to protect the private property rights of owners of smaller parcels of land within lands designated Rural Fringe Mixed Use District on the Future Land Use Map, including nonconforming lots of record which existed on or before June 22, 1999, for lots, parcels or fractional units of land or water equal to or less than five (5) acres in size, native vegetation clearing shall be allowed, at 20% or 25,000 square feet of the lot or parcel or fractional unit, whichever is greater, exclusive of any clearing necessary to provide for a 15 -foot wide access drive up to 660 feet in length. For lots and parcels greater than 5 acres but less than 10 acres, up to 20% of the parcel may be cleared. This allowance shall not be -27- Agenda Item 4M considered a maximum clearing allowance where other provisions of this Plan allow for greater clearing amounts. These clearing limitations shall not prohibit the clearing of brush or under - story vegetation within 200 feet of structures in order to minimize wildfire fuel sources. g. Within Receiving and Neutral lands where schools and other public facilities are collocated on a site, the native vegetation retention requirement shall be 30% of the native vegetation present, not to exceed 25% of the site. h. North Belle Meade Special Use Area Subdistrict: WE Agenda Item 4M Prepared By: Date: Corby L. Sc midt, Principal Planner Comprehen ive Planning Department r Reviewed By: G- Date: David C. Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By: Date: Z- ?- Randall J. Cohen, AICP, Director Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By:-Q)C 111. j � 4tLe.t Date: 2' 2-0 -off Mariib M. Student - Stirling Assistant County Attorney Office of the Collier County Attorney Approved By: Date: aa� Jos ph K. Schmitt, Administrator Co munity Development and Environmental Services Division PETITION NO.: CP- 2005 -12 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007 CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 4, 2007 BCC Meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, Chairman Agenda Item 4N Co e-r Couxty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION AMENDED TO APRIL 17, 2007 TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MARCH 5, 2007 — CONTINUED TO APRIL 19, 2007 RE: PETITION NO. CP- 2005 -13, COLLIER BOULEVARD COMMUNITY SERVICE SUBDISTRICT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] AGENT/APPLICANT/OWNERS: Agent: Robert L. Duane, AICP Hole Montes, Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34110 Applicant: Pastor David Mallory First Assembly Ministries 3805 The Lord's Way Naples, FL 34114 Owners: First Assembly of God of Naples 3805 The Lord's Way Naples, FL 34114 MDG Capital Corporation MDG Fountain Lakes, LLC William L. Klohn 2180 Immokalee Road, Suite 309 Naples, FL 34110 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property contains 69 acres more or less and is located at the northeast corner of Collier Boulevard (CR -951) — The Lord's Way intersection. The parcel lies within the Royal Fakapalm Planning Community in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County Florida. (See attachment "A") 1- Agenda Item 4N REQUESTED ACTION: This petition seeks to amend the Future Land Use Element and Future Land Use Map of the Collier County Growth Management Plan to change a portion of the "Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict ", " Urban - Mixed Use District', "Urban Designation ", in order to establish the "Collier Boulevard Community Service Subdistrict." The proposed text change adds language under the Urban - Mixed Use District, [showing the petitioner's proposed amendments in strike - through /underline format, while current Growth Management Plan language appears in plain text], effectively removing the subject property from the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, as follows: Proposed Future Land Use Element Text Amendment: [page ? ?] A. Urban — Mixed Use District 17. Collier Boulevard Communitv Service Subdistrict The purpose of this Subdistrict is to provide a community setting to be compatible with the existing and future residential and institutional development in this neighborhood. This land use designation applies to approximately 69 acres as shown on the accompanying location map to provide a core of community services, such as church assembly halls chapels, medical care units, doctor's offices, cafeterias, gymnasiums, administration offices, a transportation building with vocational center and classrooms, radio transmission center and tower, dormitories and church - related housing. The total floor area of the institutional buildings and church - related housing is approximately 368.000 square feet, subject to minor variations in this development single or multi - family units. The combination of community social services, church - related housing for employees sufficient environment, minimizing the impacts of off -site traffic and other public services, while serving the needs of the community at large. [STAFF NOTE: The proposed text language has been revised since initial submission of application materials. Please disregard the amendment entry appearing in Section W of the Application Form, or in other application materials. It is also important to consider, in both text and mapping, that 10 acre portion of the subject property which is deliberately omitted from this request. These considerations extend to all applicable text, any related mapping, the standing PUD, and so forth.] PURPOSE / DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The purpose of this project is to establish the "Collier Boulevard Community Service Subdistrict" so as to accommodate a future Planned Unit Development rezone to allow mixed use, residential and institutional development. The petitioner proposes development of a maximum of 2- Agenda Item 4N V 306 dwelling units — 10 units for persons involved on -site with church and church - related community services, 150 units for persons involved with providing essential services in Collier County including 60 affordable - workforce units, and 146 market rate units for any prospective property owner — and a maximum 368,000 square feet for institutional uses and community services. The 10 church - related dwelling units are considered incidental and accessory to the institutional and community services provided, and are not calculated or discussed as either affordable- workforce or market rate housing herein. The affordable - workforce housing component is not proposed to meet the definitions and requirements of the Collier County Affordable - Workforce Housing Density Bonus Program, but provides a mixture of Gap and Workforce housing unique to this Subdistrict.' '[Staff note: The affordable- workforce housing component will eventually meet either the requirements of the Collier County Affordable - Workforce Housing Density Bonus Program, the State of Florida's Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot (C- WHIP) Program, or, an agreement with Collier County assuring that housing is constructed and offered first to persons involved in providing essential services.] The institutional uses and community services include places of worship — an 1,800 seat church and 600 seat chapel — 400 congregate care units, a private school for 300 K -12 students, a 450 child day care center and ancillary uses and structures. 10 housing units incidental to providing these services are for clergy, church employees, church - related staff, and other personnel related to programs offered on -site. The ten church - related dwelling units for employees and staff will be located among other existing and proposed church and church - related institutional and community service land uses. Vehicular access will be provided via The Lord's Way. This proposed Subdistrict comprises 69 of the 79 acres already in a Planned Unit Development — approved previously by Ordinance 99 -59. These 69 acres will be part of the future PUD rezone mentioned above. The 10 acre remainder, which is presently undeveloped, will be removed from the PUD. SURROUNDING LAND USE, ZONING AND FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION: Existina Conditions: The subject property is currently zoned PUD, Planned Unit Development (First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus). The 79.1 -acre PUD is approved for a mixture of land uses for religious, community social services and residential uses in a campus -type setting, including: 1800 seat auditorium, 600 seat chapel, 300 student school (K -12), 450 child /adult care facility, 400 bed care unit facility, 120 travel trailer or park model lots, adult living facility for 400 group housing units, and 57 multi - family units along with numerous inside and outside recreational facilities and accessory uses. All of the PUD - permitted land uses have not been developed. A 12.3 acre portion of the PUD is a preserve area, where exotics have been removed and its habitat potential enhanced. The subject property is bisected by a utility easement and power transmission lines running north - south. Four lake excavations total about 8.7 surface acres. A major canal lies along the Collier Boulevard frontage. The current Future Land Use Designation is Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. -3- Surrounding Lands: Agenda Item 4N N - ZONING: Across The Lord's Way, A, Rural Agricultural Undeveloped Land. FLUM DESIGNATION: Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict S- ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural; Hammock Park Commerce Center Commercial PUD at Rattlesnake Hammock Road DESCRIPTION: Undeveloped, Vacant & Residential Land Uses; Commercial Land Uses at Rattlesnake Hammock Road FLUM DESIGNATION: Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict; Mixed Use Activity Center Subdistrict, at Rattlesnake Hammock Road E - ZONING: A, Rural Agricultural, Swamp Buggy Grounds PUD Swamp Buggy Sports Facility FLUM DESIGNATION: Urban Mixed -Use District, Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict; Agricultural /Rural Designation, Rural Fringe Mixed Use District, Sending Lands, Belle Meade NRPA, beyond W - ZONING: Across Collier Boulevard, Naples Lakes Country Club PUD Residential — Golf Course Community FLUM DESIGNATION: Urban Residential Subdistrict STAFF ANALYSIS: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT DATA AND ANALYSIS REQUIREMENT Chapter 9J -5, Florida Administrative Code, "Minimum Criteria for Review of Local Government Comprehensive Plans and Plan Amendments, Evaluation and Appraisal Reports, Land Development Regulations and Determinations of Compliance" sets forth the minimum data and analysis requirement for comprehensive plan amendments. More specifically, Section 9J -5.005 "General Requirements" delineates criteria for plan amendments in sub - section 9J -5.005 (2) "Data and Analysis Requirements." Sub - section 9J- 5.005(2) states in part that "All goals, objectives, standards, findings and conclusions within the comprehensive plan and its support documents, and within plan amendments and its support documents, shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis applicable to each element. To be based upon data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan or plan amendment at issue... the Department will M Agenda Item 4N review each comprehensive plan [amendment] for the purpose of determining whether the plan [amendment] is based on data and analyses described in this Chapter and whether data were collected and applied in a professionally acceptable manner." It is incumbent upon all applicants requesting comprehensive plan amendments to provide supporting data and analyses in conjunction with any relevant support documents. It is not the responsibility of Collier County staff to generate data and analysis for the applicant, although it is staff's responsibility to identify any shortcomings in the data and analyses during the consistency review process and to request additional information that is deemed essential in the review of the submitted request for a plan amendment. Any outstanding deficiencies with respect to data and analyses that may remain at the time of any requisite public hearing are the responsibility of the applicant. A detailed synopsis of the adequacy of the data and analysis for the subject plan amendment is set forth with specificity below. Environmental I m pacts: The Protected Species Survey submitted by Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc. with this petition is dated March 2006. At the northwest quadrant, a 12.3 acre portion of the PUD is a preserve area, where exotics have been removed and its habitat potential enhanced. As a result, protected species have begun to utilize this area. None were observed during field surveying, but it would be expected that wading birds may utilize the onsite wetlands. As part of a previous survey conducted in accordance with a 1997 ERP Permit, results reported that there were no Red - Cockaded Woodpeckers (RCWs) or nest cavity trees observed on site or on adjacent viewed properties. There was a sighting of a little blue heron — the only listed species observed. Environmental Specialists in the Environmental Service Department reviewed this request and stated, [t]he subject property has no special environmental concerns which would prevent it from being added as a new Subdistrict. Traffic Capacity/Traffic Circulation Analysis: The petitioner employed the firm of Metro Transportation Group, Inc. to conduct a Comparative Traffic Analysis for the proposed amendment. As the analysis points out, the elimination of 120 TTRV units and 400 care units in exchange for the addition of 296 multi - family [dwelling] units results in a general population decrease when compared to the existing PUD zoning. The existing PUD - permitted population of 1144 for these units would be replaced by 746 people with the new arrangement. The difference is estimated to represent a decrease in population of 398. Staff points out that since the initial Subdistrict application materials were prepared and submitted, the petitioner has re- introduced ten (10) dwelling units reserved for church employees and church - related personnel, representing 25 additional residents. This change equates to the addition of 306 dwelling units (not 296), still resulting with a general population decrease. The existing PUD - permitted population of 1144 for these units would be replaced by w_ 771 people (not 746) with the new arrangement. The difference is estimated to represent a decrease in population of 373 (not 398). 5- Agenda Item 4N This overall decrease in population does not translate directly to a decrease in trips generated or traffic attributed, as not all previous traffic counts were vested or committed. An actual net trip increase results from the proposed Subdistrict provisions. The 2,815 estimated trips per day increases to 3,870. These trips are generally split equally to north and south at Collier Boulevard. About 17% of the northbound trips remain on Collier, while the majority turns onto westbound Davis Boulevard. About 20% of the southbound trips remain on Collier, while the majority turns onto westbound Rattlesnake Hammock Road. Traffic on these first road segments of Davis and Rattlesnake Hammock Roads west of Collier significantly impacts their Levels of Service, along with Collier Boulevard segments immediately north and south of The Lord's Way. Sufficient capacity is available to all roadway segments except Davis Boulevard west of Collier. Davis Boulevard will have sufficient capacity when programmed improvements widen it to six lanes. However, Davis Boulevard is no longer programmed in the CIE Schedule of Capital Improvements or funded at this time. Existing Levels of Service on impacted roadway segments are: Collier Blvrd — Davis Blvrd to Rattlesnake Hammock Rd LOS C Collier Blvrd — Rattlesnake Hammock Rd to US 41 LOS C Davis Blvrd — Santa Barbara to Collier Blvd LOS D Rattlesnake Hammock Rd — Polly Ave to Collier Blvrd LOS E The adopted minimum LOS Standard for these impacted road segments is D. Rattlesnake Hammock Road is currently deficient but is programmed for construction remedies. The Metro Transportation Group analysis stated, "the trip generation of the existing PUD will be increased by 60 trips in the AM peak hour and 60 trips in the PM peak hour traffic. Two -way daily trips will increase by 1,055..." to total 3,870 trips daily. Another 1,845 daily trips are figured to never leave the site and are considered "internal capture" trips, as explained below. Proposed Subdistrict language states, "[t]he combination of community social services, church - related housing for employees, volunteers and program participants, market rate housing, housing provided for essential services personnel and the provision of public transportation facilities shall create a self- sufficient environment, minimizing the impacts of off -site traffic and other public services, while serving the needs of the community at large ". This proposition for providing institutional uses and community services on -site to "create a self- sufficient environment" is represented by an "internal capture" study within the Comparative Traffic Analysis. Summarizing from the study, it should be noted that a significant portion of traffic generated for the property never leave the site. This traffic, referred to as the "internal capture" traffic, was accounted for in the study. The existing PUD accounted for an internal capture reduction of 40% to the AM peak hour traffic, 50% to the PM peak hour traffic, and 45% to the daily traffic generated. However, this internal capture rate will likely be reduced as a result of the additional housing units proposed as part of this GMPA. Agenda Item 4N Transportation planning staff has reviewed this petition's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS), and added the following comments: The TIS indicates that there is a significant impact to Davis Boulevard between Santa Barbara Boulevard and CR 951 and this segment is currently failing and is not programmed to be widened in the County's CIE or the FDOT's five year work program. Based on the analysis, this project is not consistent with the sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the Transportation Element and 1.1.2 in the Capital Improvement Element of the Growth Management Plan. • Transportation is working with property owners north and south of this development to try and establish another north -south corridor east of CR 951 and would like to work with this developer to reserve a right -of -way corridor for a future four lane facility. This roadway, if it can get developed, may help provide the mitigation that is needed to meet the Growth Management Plan requirements. Public Facilities Impact: The petitioner prepared a Public Facilities Level of Service Analysis which was submitted with this petition. Application materials indicate this project will result in decreased impacts upon public facilities other than roads (potable water, sanitary sewer, drainage, solid waste, community and regional parks). For potable water, the proposed development reduces demand by 20,300 gallons per day. Sanitary sewer demands are reduced by 39,800 gallons per day. Solid waste demands are reduced by 494 tons. A Water Management Plan for the existing PUD is in place. The modifications to land use are expected to have little effect on the basic drainage system. The decrease in population of 373 persons would result in a reduced demand for parks accordingly. Utilizing the level of service standards identified in the CIE, this project would not impact the County's existing Levels of Service Standards (LOSS). Appropriateness of Change: The 79 acre First Assembly Ministries Education & Rehabilitation Campus PUD was approved with a 30,000 square foot church (auditorium) seating 1,800, a 20,000 square foot church (chapel) seating 600, 57 residential dwelling units, 400 congregate care units, 400 -bed assisted living facilities, 120 TTRV camp sites, a private school for 300 K -12 students, and a 450 child day care center. This Subdistrict encompasses 69 of those acres. The remaining 10 acres of the existing PUD are not included in the proposed Subdistrict. This presently undeveloped 10 -acre remainder will be removed from the PUD. Those land uses proposed to remain within the new Subdistrict include the 30,000 square foot church (auditorium) seating 1,800, the 20,000 square foot church (chapel) seating 600, 10 residential dwelling units for church - related employees, program staff and participants, 400 congregate care units, the private school for 300 K -12 students, and the 450 child day care center. 7- Agenda Item 4N Plans for the 400 -bed assisted living facilities, and the 120 TTRV camp sites will be eliminated and therefore not be part of the Subdistrict. Of the 120 campsites, 23 have been developed and are occupied. These are to be eliminated. Provisions in the present PUD addressed this scenario, as follows: Section 3.2 MAXIMUM PERMITTED DENSITY INTENSITY Development on the project shall not exceed the following limits: a multi - purpose auditorium with 1800 seats, chapel with 600 seats, private kindergarten through high school or Bible college for 300 students, child /adult care for 450 children /adults, care unit facility fro 400 persons on 15.4 acres, TTRVC for 120 travel trailer or park model lots only (at 12 lots /acre on 10 acres), adult living facility of 400 units on 15.4 acres, and 57 multi - family units (1.5 units /acre on 38.3 acres). If not all of the 120 lots within the ATTVC or all of the 400 units of the adult living facility are constructed, those units may be replaced with multi - family units at a density of 1.5 units/acre. [Emphasis added] This replacement contingency would factor out to allow another 38 units. [All 120 TTRVCs and 400 ALF units replaced on 25.5 eligible acres.] This possible 38 -unit figure would be reduced by counting out the 10 acres presently being excluded from this GMPA, to allow only 23 replacement residential units. Under this scenario, the 23 replacement residential dwelling units gained by eliminating all TTRVCs and ALF units and the 57 remaining residential dwelling units approved by the present PUD would sum up to 80 units. This above - described total is proposed to be increased to 296 within this Subdistrict. 150 of these units, as they become available, will be offered first to persons recognized to be in particular need and demand. Collier County is experiencing a critical shortage of affordable housing for people employed by occupations or professions considered essential — including teachers, educators, other school district employees, community college and university employees, police and fire personnel, health care personnel, skilled building trades personnel and government employees' '[Staff note: The occupations and professions considered essential are defined in the County's Local Housing Assistance Plan, updated October 10, 2006.] Approval of this proposed amendment will provide an avenue to request zoning approval for up to 296 affordable- workforce and market rate dwelling units not reserved for church - related employees or staff. Of these 296 dwelling units, 236 would be market rate (80 %) — including a portion of those intended for people employed by occupations or professions considered essential. Of the 60 units remaining, 35 would be for those earning 15150% of median income (12 %), and 25 units would be for those earning <_80% of median income (8 %) [20% gross affordable- workforce]. However, given that the existing Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict allows a base density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre, the 69 -acre subject property is eligible for 104 dwelling units. Therefore, of the additional 192 dwelling units, the 35 units targeted for those earning 15150% of median income represents 18 %, and the 25 units targeted for those earning :580% of median income represents 13% [31 % net affordable - workforce]. [Z Agenda Item 4N Staff points out an agreement to provide housing to people employed by occupations or professions considered essential is not on record. Nonetheless, the petitioner's proposal to make 150 residential units available to these people is an essential part of this Subdistrict — and benefits the County. Petitioner proposes a mix of housing types especially for these people — providing 35 gap units and 25 workforce units. This 35/25 mix varies from the standard Affordable Workforce Housing Density Bonus requirements of 30/30 in order to reach the desired density of approximately 4.5 dwelling units per acre. Petitioner believes this variation from County standards is justified given their commitment to providing no less than 150 housing units to people employed by occupations or professions considered essential. The County's [EAR- upgraded] annual affordable housing goal is to increase by at least fifteen percent the number of units approved to be built per year, but not less than 1,000 such dwelling units per year pursuant to Objective 2 of the Housing Element. Financial Administration and Housing Department staff concurs with the petitioner that Collier County is experiencing a shortage of affordable and workforce housing and that the shortage is substantiated by two separate studies. The Comprehensive Planning staff conferred with the Affordable Housing staff regarding Policy 5.1 of the Housing Element which states "Affordable housing will be distributed equitably throughout the County using strategies which include, but are not limited to, density bonus agreements, and impact fee deferrals. In addition, affordable housing will be located where adequate infrastructure and services are available." The Housing staff did not believe that anything in Policy 5.1 negatively affects the recommendation of this new project. Below are some projects and provisions in the Urban Residential Fringe that allow a greater intensity than the typical 1.5 du /ac. scenario. 1. The Swamp Buggy Days a /k/a Florida Sports Park is a 129 -acre PUD. The Swamp Buggy PUD is approved for intense out -of -doors sports and recreational activities, including swamp buggy races and a gun shooting range. Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. 2. Activity Center #7 is located to the south of the subject property at Rattlesnake Hammock Road and Collier Boulevard (CR -951) and will allow for commercial rezoning (C -1 through C -5 zoning districts) and development. 3. Growth Management Plan Amendment CP- 2002 -1 was approved to expand the "activity center' subdistrict located at the northeast corner of Collier Boulevard (CR -951) and Sports Park Road (Activity Center #7). The area added comprises 18.46± acres and is immediately contiguous to the eastern limit of the original activity center boundary. The approved uses are limited to: "personal indoor self- storage facilities, offices for various contractor/builder construction trade specialists inclusive of the offices of related professional disciplines and services, warehouse space for various contractor /builder construction trade occupants and related businesses including but not limited to lumber and other building materials dealers, paint, glass, and wallpaper stores, garden supply stores as accessory uses only." Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. 4. The Urban Designation allows for support medical facilities (such as physicians' offices, medical clinics, treatment, research and rehabilitative centers, and pharmacies provided the dominate use is medically related) to locate within Y4 mile of existing or approved hospitals or medical centers which offer primary and urgent care treatment for all types of injuries and traumas. Accordingly, if a hospital is approved and built, then the Agenda Item 4N surrounding lands within a '/4 mile could potentially be zoned and developed with support medical uses. Physicians Regional Medical Center recently opened and is located in Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. 5. The base residential density of 1.5 dwelling units per acre can be increased by up to 6.0 dwelling units per acre via the Affordable - Workforce Housing Density Bonus, for a maximum density of 7.5 dwelling units per acre for one specific property located elsewhere in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict. Section 23, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. This property is known as the Rockedge PUD, and was rezoned in 2006 with a gross density of 5.23 du /ac. Also, the net density of some projects found in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict is much higher than the allowed gross density of 1.5 du /ac. For example, the San Marino PUD has a net density three times the allowable gross density (352 du's; 235 acres total, less 156 acres of golf course and preserves; 352 du's on 79 acres = 4.45 du /ac. net density). Section 11, Township 50 South, Range 26 East. In light of the net residential densities, non - residential uses and increased densities allowed elsewhere in the Urban Residential Fringe Subdistrict, staff recognizes these as indicators of future development in this Subdistrict — as well as the new Collier Boulevard Community Service Subdistrict — that would be compatible and support this type of development. Neiahborhood Information Meetina Svnoosis The Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F was conducted December 14, 2006, after the agent/applicant duly noticed and advertised the meeting. Approximately 50 people attended the NIM, held at the First Assembly of God Church, 3805 The Lord's Way, and heard the following information: Bill Klohn, of MDG Capital Corporation, and representative Robert Duane, of Hole Montes, spoke throughout the information meeting. They began with overviews of the proposed project, including the mix of church and institutional land uses, community services and residential development. Landscaping upgrades to The Lord's Way, a third lake, and the shared responsibility for landscaping maintenance were discussed. Pastor Mallory of FAOG Church addressed the audience, explaining that many of the parts of the land's uses were already approved by PUD — the 368,000 square feet of church related uses, including three -story administrative and residential buildings. The travel trailers present would be removed. The current approval for 120 travel trailers and an adult living facility of 400 beds would be eliminated. Some audience members spoke about their concerns with existing residents of this neighborhood entering the Naples Lakes community, directly west, across Collier Boulevard. They are noticeable biking, walking or making their way to a CAT bus stop from the church property. Pastor Mallory agreed that he would address these comments as separate security issues, if he were to be contacted directly. -10- Agenda Item 4N Another concern voiced by audience members related to traffic safety concerns at the intersection of The Lord's Way at Collier Boulevard. The increasing amount of traffic on Collier Boulevard and the increase in turning maneuvers from these new residents will need attention. Many thought full signalization would be warranted as these residences are built. Mr. Klohn presented illustrations of the one, two and three bedroom floor plans — highlighting the "livable" layout in each unit's design. People voiced their concern regarding how many people would be allowed in these dwelling units. They felt that if not controlled in some manner, residents would take advantage of some of the larger residences' size and layout for more than just one family. Mr. Klohn discussed this concern at length and committed to limit the number of persons per unit in some manner. '[Staff note: During the NIM the petitioner discussed their proposal to participate in the State of Florida's Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot (C -WHIP) Program, but eventually, it was not selected by the State for fiscal year 2006. At the discretion of staff, specific information presented about this program was edited from this synopsis to avoid confusion. However, this petition stands on its own merits of providing an affordable - workforce housing component.] [Synopsis prepared by L. Koehler, Public Information Coordinator, and C. Schmidt, Principal Planner] FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: • The proposed uses will allow development generally compatible with uses on surrounding properties. The subject property is presently zoned PUD to accommodate a 30,000 square foot church (auditorium) seating 1,800, a 20,000 square foot church (chapel) seating 600, 57 residential dwelling units, 400 congregate care units, 400 -bed assisted living facilities, 120 TTRV camp sites, a private school for 300 K -12 students, and a 450 child day care center. The proposed FLUE amendment results with a net decrease to residential density and overall intensity by removing the 400 -bed assisted living facilities, and the 120 TTRV camp sites. • Provision of 60 affordable - workforce housing units help reach the County's [EAR - upgraded] annual affordable housing goal to increase by at least fifteen percent the number of units approved to be built per year pursuant to Objective 2 of the Housing Element. • The Subdistrict affordable - workforce housing component provides a unique mix of gap and workforce housing, but does not meet the definitions and requirements of the Collier County Affordable - Workforce Housing Density Bonus Program. • Provision of 150 housing units offered first to people employed by occupations or — professions considered essential helps meet the County's expressed demand for such housing. 11- Agenda Item 4N • The existing PUD accounts for an internal capture reduction of 40% to the AM peak hour traffic, 50% to the PM peak hour traffic, and 45% to the daily traffic generated. However, these capture rates will likely be reduced as a result of the additional housing units proposed as part of this GMPA. • The subject property accesses one collector road — Collier Boulevard. • Sufficient capacity is available to all roadway segments except Davis Boulevard west of Collier Boulevard. Davis Boulevard will have sufficient capacity when programmed improvements widen it to six lanes. Rattlesnake Hammock Road from Polly Avenue to Collier Boulevard is currently deficient but is programmed for construction remedies. • As a result of this amendment there are no significant impacts to public facilities, as defined in the CIE, with respect to Potable Water, Sanitary Sewer, Stormwater Drainage, Solid Waste, Community and Regional Parks facilities. There is however, significant impact to Davis Boulevard between Santa Barbara Boulevard and CR 951. Transportation Planners are working with the property owner to provide the mitigation that is needed to meet the Growth Management Plan requirements. • Approval of this petition may lead to other requests for increased density, or non- residential uses, on nearby properties. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the CCPC forward Petition CP- 2005 -13 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the Florida Department of Community of Affairs. Staff Report revision on 5118107: As considered at the CCPC hearing, a stipulation was written to directly address transportation consistency and concurrency matters. This resulted with the CCPC recommendation of the Subdistrict including an additional stipulation lettered Y', as shown below. Staff recommends this approval with further modifications to the proposed language, noted below in double strike - through /double underline format, as follows: A. Urban — Mixed Use District 17. Collier Boulevard Community Faciliity. SepAao Subdistrict 12- Agenda Item 4N Prepared By: t�/W1I- Date: (0 Da Corby L. S hmidt, Principal Planner Comprehe sive Planning Department Reviewed By: r L G, W� Date: 2— 2`� —a7 David C. Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By: Date: Randall J. Co n, AICP, Director Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By: O Date: Marjo Student- Stirling Assistant County Attorney Office of the Collier County Attorney Approved By: Date: ose h K. Schmitt, Administrator o unity Development and Environmental Services Division PETITION NO.: CP- 2005 -13 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007 CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 4, 2007 BCC Meeting, COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, Chairman Item VI.B. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT MEETING OF February 7, 2007 I. NAME OF PETITIONER/PROJECT: Petition No.: CPSP- 2005 -14 Petition Name: RFMUD Sending Lands Re- designation Requests (Comprehensive Plan Amendment initiated by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department) [Transmittal hearing] Applicant: Multiple — the owners of 96 properties (please see attached spreadsheet identifying property owners and agents) H. LOCATION: This petition consists of 96 properties comprising ±3,641 acres. They are located in the following Sections - Townships- Ranges and general areas: Section Twp Rng Area 34 47 27 2 miles N -NW of Fairgrounds 3 48 27 1.75 miles N -NW of Fairgrounds 11 48 26 2 miles N of CR951 /Immokalee Rd. intersection 25 49 26 2 miles E of CR951 in North Belle Meade 29,32 49 27 N of 1 -75 in North Belle Meade 13, 14, 22, 27 49 27 N of I -75 in North Belle Meade NRPA 15,21 51 27 N -NW of US41 /CR92 intersection III. BACKGROUND and PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On June 19, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) a/k/a comprehensive plan to establish the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and related Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program for ±73,000 acres designated on the countywide Future Land Use Map as Agricultural/Rural and generally located between the Golden Gate Estates subdivision and the coastal urban area. The RFMUD consists of Sending Lands, Receiving Lands, and Neutral Lands. Sending Lands are so designated because, at the landscape scale (not site- _ specific parcel by parcel scale), they contain lands of higher environmental value — wetlands, listed species habitat, etc. Accordingly, allowable land uses are greatly restricted and native vegetative retention standards are stringent (80 %). The desire EAC Meeting 2/7/07 is for these lands not to be developed and instead transfer (send) the residential development rights from these Sending Lands to Receiving Lands, lands possessing lesser environmental value and where development is directed and encouraged. Each of the 96 subject parcels is designated RFMUD Sending Lands, though five are partially Receiving Lands as well, and some are also within a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay and/or the North Belle Meade (NBM) Overlay; and, each is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use zoning overlay and some are in the NRPA and /or NBM zoning overlays. During the public hearings in 2002, many owners of proposed (and now - designated) Sending Lands asserted their property had been previously cleared or otherwise did not warrant the Sending Lands designation. Recognizing this possibility — it was made well -known that the designations were based upon landscape scale analysis, but also that allowing Receiving or Neutral Lands designations to be surrounded by Sending Lands designations (Swiss cheese concept — holes of Receiving or Neutral Lands within Sending Lands) was not acceptable, the BCC included a GMP provision giving a one year window in which owners of Sending Lands property that share a boundary with either Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands could submit data and analysis in an effort to demonstrate that, as of the date of adoption of the RFMUD (June 19, 2002), the Sending Lands designation was not warranted. Also, staff would re- evaluate the data used in 2002 (panther telemetry data, red - cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat data, land cover classification data, etc.) to determine the boundaries of Sending Lands. Please see the GMP provision below. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) RFMUD Sending Lands 4411. Adjustment to the Sending Land Boundaries. For all properties designated Sending Lands where such property is contiguous to a Sending Land /Neutral Land boundary or Sending Land /Receiving Land boundary, the County will provide written notice to the property owners to advise of the opportunity to submit additional data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate a change to the boundary is warranted. Said written notice will be provided within three months of the effective date of these Rural Fringe amendments. Within one year from the date these notices are sent, the County will initiate a Growth Management Plan amendment to consider boundary changes, based upon the data and analysis, as may be warranted. Under the following conditions, adjustments may be proposed to Sending Land boundaries: a) The property is contiguous to Neutral or Receiving Lands; b) Site specific environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property does not contain characteristics warranting a Sending designation; c) An adjustment to the Sending land boundary requires an amendment to the Future Land Use Map." During the allotted one year period, twelve submittals were received comprised of 98 parcels (but only 96 are under consideration as two are already designated Neutral Lands). The total acreage of these 96 parcels is ±3,641 though that 2 EAC Meeting 2/7/07 includes roughly 1,245 acres of Receiving Lands as five parcels have split Sending/Receiving Lands designations, leaving about 2,400 acres of actual Sending Lands. Per BCC direction in October 2005, contiguous parcels under the same ownership are to be viewed as a single property for purposes of determining if the property is contiguous to Receiving or Neutral Lands. However, in viewing the submitted data and analysis for purpose of determining the appropriateness of Sending Lands designation, each tax parcel is viewed separately. Given that the burden is on the property owner to demonstrate the Sending Lands designation is not warranted, staff's approach is to look for conclusive evidence. Most of the submittals simply verify the existence of native vegetation on the subject parcels. The attached spreadsheet identifies each tax parcel, its location, staff's recommendation and rationale, and other information. As noted on the spreadsheet, and on the two maps identifying the 96 parcels, staff is recommending only 20 parcels be re- designated from Sending Lands to Neutral or Receiving Lands. These 20 parcels are highlighted on the spreadsheet, and outlined in red on the maps. A neighborhood information meeting for this petition was held on January 17, — 2007. A summary of the meeting is attached. One issue unrelated to the submitted data and its evaluation pertains to authorization of property owners for their property to be submitted and evaluated in this process. Some agents have submitted a notarized letter of authorization to demonstrate they have the legal authority to represent the owners of the subject parcels for which they have submitted data and are requesting a re- designation; however, some have not — and may not have been previously advised by staff of the need to do so. (The owners of one property listed under the agent Don Lester /15,000 Coalition recently met with staff and advised they never granted authorization to that agent or any other to represent them in this process.) Only a property owner or their authorized agent may petition the County to request a GMP amendment. Therefore, staff will advise all agents and property owners for which a notarized letter of authorization has not been provided, of the need to do so; failure to provide such a letter will likely result in the affected properties being withdrawn from this GMP amendment requesting re- designation. Finally, a GMP amendment such as this would ordinarily be evaluated for impacts upon infrastructure, effect upon the TDR program, compatibility considerations, etc. However, amendment is being reviewed only under the specific criteria established in the FLUE and stated above, as it is a special provision authorized by the BCC in the 2002 Rural Fringe GMP amendments (which were subsequently found to be in compliance with state statutes by the Florida Department of Community Affairs). 3 EAC Meeting 2/7/07 IV. GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN CONSISTENCY: This is a proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Element as specifically allowed by the FLUE. For those properties that are re- designated, they will be subject to all GMP requirements and limitations of the new Future Land Use Map designation, including the native vegetation retention requirements of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element. V. RECOMMENDATIONS: Please see the attached, previously referenced, spreadsheet for staff recommendations. PREPARED BY: David Weeks, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager Comprehensive Planning Department Mac Hatcher, Environmental Specialist Environmental Services Department WAliam D. Loren -V, Jr., I�E., Director Environmental Services Department APPROVED BY: K. Schmitt, Administrator mity Development & Environmental Services Division Date Date C / -3 /,v Date "/3i 1627 Date EAC Staff Report CPSP -05.14 Sending Lands Re- designation G: Comprehensive /Camp. Planning GMP DATA/Comp. Plan Amendmentsi2005 Petitions/CPSP- 2005 -14, Sending Lands Re- designation Dw/1 -31 -07 4 DRAFT DRAFT Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Summary CPSP - 2005 -14, Sending Lands Re- designation Golden Gate Community Center 1/17/07 @ 5:30 p.m. Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department staff member David Weeks provided background of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and its establishment in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) in 2002; generally explained allowable uses in Sending Lands, Receiving Lands and Neutral Lands; explained the GMP included a provision for owners of Sending Lands along the Sending/Receiving or Sending/Neutral boundary to submit environmental data in an effort to demonstrate that their property does not warrant the Sending designation and that the designation should be changed to the abutting designation (either Receiving or Neutral); noted that owners of 92 properties, comprising 3,646 acres, took advantage of this opportunity and submitted data; advised that, based upon staff's preliminary review of the data, only about 10 properties would be recommended for change, but noted the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) would make the final determination; and, advised that the County regulations require notification of owners within 1,000' of any of these properties for which the re- designation request was made so that they might be aware of requested land use change that could potentially impact their property. Also, that the owners initiated these requests but that the County was taking the requested amendments forward thm the hearing process at no cost to the owners. David referred to the table at the back of the room which contained his business cards for future contact; a sign -up sheet as sometimes people want there to be an official record to show they attended; and, a handout containing excerpts from the GMP (RFMUD of the Future Land Use Element) — this opportunity to request re- designation, and portions of the Sending /Receiving/Neutral Lands designations. David invited the audience to contact him with any follow -up questions and/or to check the Department's website for additional information about this petition, e.g. hearing dates, Staff Report. Several questions were asked about Sending/Receiving/Neutral designations, such as what the allowable uses are [David explained]; if nearby owners would be notified of future development for those properties successful in this re- designation request [depends — yes if a public hearing process is involved, e.g. conditional use, no if not, e.g. building permit]; about the GMP amendment process, including whether they could file a request for re- designation [David explained; yes, anyone has a right to submit an application but at their own expense]; whether the County owned any of this property [no] or initiated this request on behalf of any owner [no]. Various comments were made pertaining to the history of the RFMUD, the process to establish it, the Rural Fringe Advisory (citizen) Committee appointed by the BCC, opinions about the RFMUD and the (inappropriate) designation of some properties as Sending Lands, various procedural matters of state law (e.g. dispute resolution process, visioning process). DRAFT DRAFT usA DRAFT In response to a question, David advised the first set of hearing dates as: Environmental Advisory Council — first Wednesday in February [7`h]; Collier County Planning Commission (CCPQ — March 5, with carryover dates to be decided at the CCPC's 1/18/07 hearing; BCC — June 4 with carryover date to 5`h. There being no further questions, the meeting was adjourned shortly before 7:00 p.m. Several persons spoke with David afterwards. Public Attendance: +55. County Staff: 4 Staff: David Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager, Comprehensive Planning Department Michele Mosca, AICP, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department Beth Yang, Principal Planner, Comprehensive Planning Department Lisa Koehler, Public Information Coordinator, Community Development & Environmental Services Division Administration NIM summary G: Comp /Comp. Planning GMP DATA/Comp. Plan Amendments/2005 Petitions/CPSP- 2005 -14, Sending Lands Re- designation dw/1 -17 -07 DRAFT DRAFT 3 9 m ° ° ° o ° ° ° z o. y z z° z z z z zm zO S N a � p O C¢ w O N N N N � U z 0 O O O O O O m m O m m m Z •O % m m m z z z z z ❑ 7 ❑ 7 ❑ ❑ 0 2 2 2 -zC a m a m m m m a m a m a m a 1 OC C C C C `ro N G o C b C N o C b (O C / a m C D 'y ❑ 7 ❑ 7 ❑ 7 cl > S, ❑¢ ❑ ❑ b W ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ N N N N N N N N N N C11 OI �M1i V) t2 N d 0 Q O r m m O 03 O O« O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O« w O m 0 r a E E E E m (7 C7 C7 d O 2 o E E E E m E m m E E m o f a 3 3 3 3 3 ° O O . O 3 u 0 uJ w . o N 0 N 0 .0 J J J 0 O J N N " pypgpg d ro d d A d A d A , . 9yC W N W N W N W N W N W .0 LL D lZ LL D LL�Z V4 ¢ ¢ cc� Cl Cl Z O T T T Q ¢ Q ¢ Q ¢ L L L L L o E E E T E > T �' T m m m m m 3 � N C C C - C O C V > LC L j > L C > U L > O F d > C w eC N d n U E U d a d o E o >E >E EQ > E >E4>C o E ?a >o E-<a I °C 0 CO d o ❑ O wu ❑ O w ❑ O ❑ ❑ C w d d C C = w m U U 'o0 d d A d d d 'O w E U u N u d LC o O¢ O C7 ¢ O ¢ O C7 O C7 ¢ C7 _. m s m > c c c c c c c • N ro a m m n m m a a a 5 s L < m v D L c < m d D L c G m m D m s 3 0 o ?mm y:ny o 0 m s 3 0 0'� 0 m n om8mb' -o' nc ¢ m n o m m r mom ,n �'�' o.' m m r n ,� O m m n » -O nNo o m m :0�. 5 f `O 3 ma ao o . n n o0 T > < 3 ao�Y �5 < 0 eeyye� p - p Y v C p Y g m o ? 0 I] ]J 31 JJ 31 O Z j 7 N O a O N P o D o :D A. m > > > � r r r 'm 0 m H, __�..7 . m O A y oil t C=i NNN Nri d N N '� N iN N N m N 3 V S N = N N O O PSG z a O m a !N a m N N N m W�W O O O N (p � CIS 00 4lO 01 ITIOJ N l i m pJ m m I rn O cn O O 10 IW N O Imo— N O I E° � O O N N f 1 N l O 0) O N W � W V• N O W 41 N N D _ a0 f0 (o V a0 a0 <0 1D T 31 OO 7J 31 c o JJ i I3 i O C O 'Z � .mo m m n Im a a Z a O O O i0 O 3 O z O O O 3 o N y O O O 3T 1 3O 1 1 _. S C O C C m Z iZ W CD Z N Z IZ N O] Z Z N �m m. 1 Z �D7 m Z �W M. Z I m. Z N �� Z Z c m O O O IN -O < < < 1{�( {m� ({�� .0 .n O O - O 0 'z 0 0 z �0 z 0 z o �z o z 10 0 �z z 0 z 0 Z �Z o iC iK q C v g �0 O o' x m � R m i E 0 C c W¢ A O O O O O O N y N m N m N m N m N m N m N m tll a cm O O ZI Z Z Z Z Z Z } } } } } } } } gY�O O 0 N ° � O. O N N N N N N m N m N m N } N } N } N } N } N } N } N } U z M z Z Z Z m a a a z a a a a a n > > > > > Z v m Z > > > > > > g m m m m 0 q 0 m 6 Cl 6 6 6 0 0 g 0 0 0 g 6 0 g 6 6 0 > > > LL' Q LL R Q > > 7 J G ¢ IL Q D Q Q Q Q Q I O 0 0 0 o m¢ a ¢ 0 0 o O o o O o m m m m z a m m m m m m m m Z Z a Z a z z Z Z a Z a Z a a a a a z m a m m a a a v a c a o c a c o c v c o c 0 c 0 c g in in c m c m m c m m m m m m m m � `y in 0 o c m 0 0 6 0' 0 0 0 0. 0 0 E 0 0 ❑ LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL LL Ir N N N _¢ N N N N N N N N N N N N N y N�O m M r N N N N N T m N N N 00 N N ° O 0 M 0 n V f0 V O O O 0 O O 0 0 O O 7 O O `O O r O m b O ENO O N r M _. ❑ ❑ ❑ J J O ❑- ❑ m a a a a ni d m c - - oc y N N N V N N E C LL LL LL LL LL LL a ❑ J❑ j❑ -J ❑ 0 m m O LL LL C C C C C C c C O. O C ° 1O C `= C - ` ° C m N N'. '> N m '7 > N m o G C C C C C d m m m m m E m E E E E E E E $ S LL LL LL U a a a dE ¢ ¢ a ¢ Q a' J(pr, C} 3 ci ❑ m Fa 4 IA N N N e S IL IL IL LL C G 0 Qp. N U �: 1 T T T T V R OM m,]'... IF = E ¢ ¢ y ¢ dE a a ¢ d d a m U U J ,N dO U J J o N O J O O J J O O O Oy . m > > O o m ° ° s 0 ° E E N 0 o 0 o 0 0 a o Z to C y N t N t V) C N N N LL C (7 (1 U (7 N fA (n N D: IL LL ¢ IL ¢ IL ¢ IL ¢ IL ¢ IL ¢ m m m m m m m m a '] N❑ m C C C 7. m Y U U U U IC) U U U 9 m m m m m m m fh a` a s n n T y T N °o ut A a a m N N a N m N y 7 ¢ 7 W J N O a n N Y J ¢ N O Z c m v N tom° m V Ol -.: A W N N O l d m J m N A fJ...... 9 m m m m m J J 7 p J p O O j O 7 O O p �J p - O O p ,1yC13 `JG `JG •JG.. J J l0 1p r m° v 0 0 p0 ° lial vO _ � I m m J 0 O O ° a o o CO. o m 0 n m o a m n m o S m oo m o ¢ m p y ¢ J os m . g m D m m 0 d m D T D n .r 0 0 0 N 0 N 0 0 0 0 0 N N 0 r. 0 .3 N ^1 N^ N .i N Vmi T N 'p •-r. N m 0 0 0 � S 0. T- m' m D 3 < o m O N 3 3 O D. N J J� i J 1 J i .0 J V r° 9 0 m 0¢ m 0¢ N¢ O� O m m m m n O m n O m n. n C) OBI e m m� m m m� °¢ m i w o � m D D � 0 0 o oo 00 la x m 3 O x n x a S d a R7 D o � m a D a 1P � 3 �o .�� > > y C � ? D � �� � A Io to '� p � p � � •p F m m 03 Qm m O ;z Imo. c c c m 1O Ip T� ip O O n N N p v n 3 D_ 3 3 m x is x x x x x m r m m o .y o o ,m ?< B $ d m o 5 m m o ° m Jl 7 2 3 D J F j < Q N O IO 5 3 dI m o N tb o 3 ? Q F w m ¢ T m 1 J-1 p r r p r Ip r O r p m N wo wo � 08 0 8 O O O 00 O A O O O IO O A O p d O 0 G IN t° t° Q) aCiN fn N N OHO �� N � N NO NN }I � ryry° N �a aNaNaNaN'a T 3 T a T T T T �� l� a._a T T as T a a a a s a� 3 3 3 �� 3 3 3 C 3 C '3 C �3 p Vl O p p O p tlJ p IO pp 'O �y O C O O C O O m fn m (O AJ y m m m m y m -m y w m Vl y y �y i0 J n J n J J J J a ¢ ¢ ¢ J n J n J ¢ m J 6 m J m J m m J J mm J J n m O J J J J j > > J m J a J a ¢ J ¢ n j j n n IC Z Z Z Z Z Z z Z Z Z Z I Z Z 2 Z z Z Z 9 I Z .'m_. O O O O O �9 O O O O O O O O O O OO 0 ° T T T a a � �T a 3 T T T a T as T T as T T a T a a a a a a C I� K �� � T T c 3 T T T iT O O O �O �O O O O c,c OO C C IC 'O C O C �c I3 C C O p C m m m m m i m Z Z Z m m m Z m Z m Z m Z .O Z Z Z Z O Z Z 'Z m m ° s •s m ° m m m m m m Z Is 0 I' Z W Z I s ° Z m Z W � < R O O O O O O O O O O O _ go �Z�, � C f1 q I l0 N O O O y O O O O Oz ppC ryry O O O O O O m O °Z ° J° W . P U n T y T N °o ut A a a m N N a N m N y 7 ¢ 7 W J N O a n N Y J ¢ N O Z c m v N 9 E a a n m N v 0 N A mD C a N 0 m N Q N N N N N 6 d u 0 n m N n 0 m S a d C1 0 000 D 1 D 1 1 0 D v - nDCm C, o tmim`m� 0 IMP 941 III --�pc m m 9 _ 1 _ - _. .. N om 3 m n m D ¢ ¢ O O O O O O� O O o 0 0 0 3 3 < I r F i D 0 0 0 0 w m fu m a a a 0 m 'm a y .00 y m 2 O C 0 N o o m o 0 0 o 0 !0 O m O !p O Rl O !rt O a °_ ry r y r a rd r d m O y m O m l O m n m 0 O m a o n Om O N �. ¢ 4. ¢ a d 2 r 0.4 r$ N .-i.' r° m N ^-1. r d r N ', y r Nm. m O m Nay ,° �m �m .°�� o Vml O N Y n m,�' m° N O N ." N O N A n p n S 0 r J�N 31 m �� l 1 N N— O N N W aO o OI_ Gl N _OI o 0 0 OI NI O O �� m O OLO O 0 '0 O �1 OQ m O _OI t � l Vr- m D Z `i °w N I fry =' m m i_ y A N �3 �a ° 3 o �- y to � I N D C fail ••U I a.. m m o = m d oz m n f v 0 D Z2 o ° aI D y' a d d m s ¢ ° m� l�I1_ m m o m� _ V N O O wo z i NI m 4 `" o 'o m m O °m D �m N o o m� m rn m �I d P 1 O Z 1I 1 f. .. p yI `l mi o o 0 ¢ £ m I " o v 3 N O N N¢ n m n > > 0'c, N p o s ° y p i 0 a m J N � 118:3 y^' W O� O A m 0 my 8 N O m O O N + 'p' 2 p T O T N a m N N N m W �V _ cn m (AO (AO N (AO tA0 m N tA0 (AO 0_ 1 m III` D m m c c IC C C C C c ° v o v v v C v 3 3 3 3 x N, m O Q N In N Ll N N m m m 0 m m rn m c O c O c O c O 5 0 0 S m m ao iC 9 Ro Ia I I Z z a I� m m m m -m m Z Z Z Z m T� D I D I m z ZN W W m �D m �� ID -�a W i 3 I� Rr 3 ID im T m m m �l w �o m -1 T m �m � o o o J) 31 D ID N I� c v c v '0 0 o cm O O 71 71 � o n n �i In m m m 31 n m n n n 6 m m m O O O O O O O tKz P O N N O Z N- N N I� go 0 -flT-rmo O ASS N NO OO O IO O O O O O O dZ O Z aS Zip n m N v 0 N A mD C a N 0 m N Q N N N N N 6 d u 0 n m N n 0 m S a d 4 �_ E N a c m J i0 7 N Z o x a c m c U d O N a c m J m C 0 c d N m m c m N N a d 0 m N d 7 Q d v_ N O O N d N a U Legend RFMUD k1 REDESIGNATION REQUESTS Potential Redesignation of Sending Lands 6 REQUESTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY STAFF NEUTRAL 6 ,5 4 3 2 47 47 47 47 47 1 RECEIVING 27 27 27 27 27 47 7 27 SENDING 1 NRPA 7 it 10 - 12 - 47 8 9 47 11 47 27 47 47 27 4 7 27 27 27 27 7 I 28 18 16 14 13 47 17 47 1 47 47 18 27 47 27 15 27 47 27 47 28 27 19 20 47 23 24 47 19 47 27 47 27 47 27 27 47 28 27 I 30 47 I 29 47 I q8 26 25 47 30 147 27 27 27 47 27 128 27 32 47 33 47 34 35 36 31 27 27 47 47 47 47 47 27 27 27 28 27 5 48 3 48 2 1 48 6 48 6 48 1 27 48 27 48 27 27 28 27 27 _ 10 7 - - - - - - -- 8 10 48 48 1 12 48 17 148 9 48 12 48 48 27 11 27 128 48 26 26 27 48 27 26 15 14 13 17 15 16 48 48 14 48 13 13 18 48 48 48 48 18 48 27 27 27 27 27 128 16 26 26 26 48 26 � _ OIL- WELL -RD 23 211 22 423 23 48 24 48 19 20 21 1 22 48 48 27 48 X18 4 8 1' 2� j 26 2fi 48, 48 27 I 27 27 1 27 28 261 27 i IMMOKAL•EE•RD 29 ? 26 25 3 27 �8 26 48 25 30 48 27 28 > 48 48 48 48 27 48 28 28 26 26 48. 48 m 27 27 27 48 i 2611 26 i (D 1 _ 34 36 31 32 J 3,i � 35 48 36 48 131 331 48 35 48 48 28 I 48 34 27 27 48', 26 48 26 27 27 iz 48 26 26 27 J { I ca 2 1 6 5 p 3 I 2 2 3 49 49 1 49 49 49 49 1 4 49 26 26 i 27 27 i 4 27 27 49 49i 26 26 49 2� 11 2712 � _ - GOL-DEN-GATE -BLVD W �!r 49 49 9 '10 11 12 7 i 8 _ _ F 10 _ 27 27 1 - 491 49 rr f(.�/��eeletl By CD 'i 11Bir�tlsey\ProjeeSsWlanners \Da 49 S GIS /CAff33jj��yy��pping Dep itl We.eW afdlFrinBeNO(1 49 tlmenl 511 %17 m2961e:02/23/ 49 7 27 49 27 `, 49 27 49 27 1 49 49 49RF ,' U ® 16 15 13 14 13 18 �`ot 6 27 49 49 14 49 18 e tai Redesigna iorCbf end g Lars 49 2 27 8 1 19 2:3 24 49 49 24 19 49 49 27 27 21 4 23 49 49 26 26 27' 2 49 27 28 27 26 25 49 28 2 26 25 30 49 49 27 49 49 49 49 49 26 26 27 27 27 27 28 35 36 49 49 31 33 qg 31 4 26 26 49 9 27 35 36 49 27 49 49 28 6 27 27 BECK BLVD 0 2 r26 6 4 2 6 6 50 50 50 5 27 50 3 50 1 50 26 27 27 50 28 50 50 27 27 27 11 2 7 8 10 1 50 50 50 12 26 26 27 27 50 20 50 50 7 27 27 27 50 28 13 17 16 _ - 1 14 50 18 14 18 50 50 15 50 13 50 26 50 27 27 50 27 50 26 27 27 20 28 20 21 22 23 -19 23 24 19 50 50 50 50 24 50 50 50 27 27 26 27 27 50 28 26 27 i 26 25 30 29 28 26 25 30 50 50 50 50 50 27 50 26 26 27 27 27 50 277 207 i 28 27 11 36 31 32 31 _ 33 34 35 36 56 50 4 35 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 26 26 27 27 27 27 27 27 28 i t 2 1 6 5 _ 6 51 51 51 51 4 2 1 51 26 26 27 27 51 51 51 28 27 27 27 10 61 ��'Ll /. 7 8 10 11 T 12 59 51 9 51 51 6 26 j�<`� 26 27 27 51 27 27 12 7 51 27 51 28 - 27 - _ - 13 17 13 18 5 14 51 51 16 14 51 51 I 1 11 51 26 18 27 51 51 27 28 j ® REDESIGNATION REQUESTS 27 27 . ® REQUESTS RECOMMENDED FOR APPROVAL BY STAFF - -. _. NEUTRAL O 2 r 19 I RECEIVING 1 5 23 24 51 SENDING 7 51 51 28 27 27 NRPA 271 26- 25 2g __ 25 30- 257 1 51 51 26 l��s\RuralFri ge5o]511 �751 51Ceatetl ey CDES AD Mappl g Depar t 1 51 51 L 43Ig] � i 27 1 51 27 27 28 Agenda Item 4P Coer Co-r,><-n�ty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: MARCH 5, 2007 RE: PETITION NO. CPSP - 2005 -15, THOROUGHFARE CORRIDOR PROTECTION PLANS GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT [TRANSMITTAL HEARING] AGENT /APPLICANT: Agent: Nick Casalanguida, Planning Manager Collier County Transportation Planning Services 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Applicant: Don Scott, Director of Transportation Planning Services Collier County Transportation Services 2885 South Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The proposed Growth Management Plan amendment is not specific to a certain location. REQUESTED ACTION: The proposed text change seeks to amend the Transportation Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan to establish thoroughfare corridor protection and preservation planning, through related plans, maps, tables and ordinances, as follows: [Note: Current Transportation Element language appears below in plain text, the petitioner's proposed amendments are shown in strike - through /underline format.] 1- Agenda Item 4P Proposed Transportation Element Text Amendment: [page 13] OBJECTIVE 3: The County shall provide for the protection and acquisition and future right -of -ways. Policy 3.5 that: [Note: No revisions to Policies 3.1 through 3.4 are proposed.] 1. identifies, in detail, corridors necessary to develop the County roadway network shown on the County's Long Range Transportation Plan and 2. adopt. Corridor Preservation Maps. Corridor PrPRP..rvAfinn Tahlpc i ri iro1 3. 4. 5. a provide for an approval process by the Board of County Commissioners for new or expanded corridors and intersections: and for land included within protected areas For the purposes of this Policy, protected thoroughfares shall include: 1. the required corridors on either side of the center line of an existing or planned roadway: or 2. required corridors for roadway or alternative transportation networks for which no centerline has been established; or 3. corridors for future roadways or alternative transportation networks which have been identified through corridor studies; or 4. protected areas at critical intersections including but not limited to Proposed grade separated intersections Policy 3.6 In the event of any type of right -of -way acquisition or reservation for all purposes included for Board of County Commissioners Any modifications or reductions that conflict with any other M Agenda Item 4P This proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment does not involve adopting the Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plan, a Transportation Corridor Preservation Map, Corridor Preservation Tables, Critical Intersection Tables or Ordinances, themselves. This GMPA does however, establish the means for preparing, adopting and updating these items consistent with Florida Statutes, as separate documents at later dates. STAFF ANALYSIS: Transportation Element: The Transportation Element goal to "plan for, develop and operate a safe, efficient, and cost effective transportation system that provides for both the motorized and non - motorized movement of people and goods throughout the County" is followed by the working objective to "provide for the protection and acquisition of existing and future rights -of- way" Policy 3.1 indicates that the County has "implemented [and maintains] an advanced Right -of- Way Preservation and Acquisition Program ". The proposed amendments for additional Policies in the Transportation Element further these efforts by identifying the corridors where rights -of- way and roadways will eventually be located, in accordance with a Thoroughfare Corridor Protection Plan (TCPP). Neighborhood Information Meeting: A Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) is not required by LDC Section 10.03.05 F for Growth Management Plan amendments which are not site specific. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This Staff Report has been reviewed and approved by the County Attorney's Office. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the CCPC forward Petition CPSP- 2005 -15 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval to transmit to the Florida Department of Community of Affairs. -3- Agenda Item 4P Prepared By: Date: Corby L. Sc midt, Principal Planner Comprehen jive Planning Department Reviewed By: Date: 2 -)-0 — 0 7 David C. Weeks, AICP, Planning Manager Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By: Date: 4RaallUCoen, CP, Director Comprehensive Planning Department Reviewed By: LL ,C.c&" Date: Z - 24 C) -7 M qo M. Student - Stirling 0 Assistant County Attorney Office of the Collier County Attorney Approved By Date: a� o J eph K. Schmitt, Administrator mmunity Development and Environmental Services Division PETITION NO.: CPSP- 2005 -15 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007 CCPC Meeting. NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 4, 2007 BCC Meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: Mark P. Strain, Chairman Agenda Item 4.0. Coi e,-r Coi4i-tty STAFF REPORT COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION, COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT HEARING DATE: March 5, 2007 RE: PETITION CPSP- 2005 -14, SENDING LANDS RE- DESIGNATION GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT (TRANSMITTAL HEARING) AGENT /APPLICANT: Multiple — the agents and owners of 90 properties are identified on the attached re- designation spreadsheet. However, Collier County government is the petitioner. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: This petition consists of 90 properties comprising ±3,606 acres. They are located in the following Sections - Townships- Ranges and general areas: Section Two Rna Area 34 47 27 2 miles N -NW of Fairgrounds 3 48 27 1.75 miles N -NW of Fairgrounds 11 48 26 2 miles N of CR951 /lmmokalee Rd. intersection 25 49 26 2 miles E of CR951 in North Belle Meade 29,32 49 27 N of 1 -75 in North Belle Meade 13, 14, 22, 27 49 27 N of 1 -75 in North Belle Meade NRPA 15,21 51 27 N -NW of US41 /CR92 intersection REQUESTED ACTION: In each case, the property owner is requesting the property be re- designated from Rural Fringe Mixed Use District Sending Lands to either Neutral Lands or Receiving Lands (whichever it abuts). BACKGROUND and PROJECT DESCRIPTION: On June 19, 2002, the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) adopted amendments to the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP) a/k/a comprehensive plan to establish the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and related Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) program for ±73,000 acres designated on the countywide Future Land Use Map as Agricultural /Rural and generally located between the Golden Gate Estates subdivision and the coastal urban area. The RFMUD consists of Sending Lands, Receiving Lands, and Neutral Lands. Sending Lands are so designated because, at the landscape (macro) scale (not site - specific parcel by parcel view), they contain lands of higher environmental value — wetlands, listed species habitat, etc. Accordingly, allowable land uses are greatly restricted and native Agenda Item 4.0. vegetative retention standards are stringent (80 %). The desire is for these lands not to be developed and instead transfer (send) the residential development rights from these Sending Lands to Receiving Lands, lands possessing lesser environmental value and where development is directed and encouraged. Each of the 90 subject parcels is designated RFMUD Sending Lands, though five are partially Receiving Lands as well, and some are also within a Natural Resource Protection Area (NRPA) Overlay and /or the North Belle Meade (NBM) Overlay; and, each is zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and is within the Rural Fringe Mixed Use zoning overlay and some are in the NRPA and /or NBM zoning overlays. During the public hearings in 2002, many owners of proposed (and now - designated) Sending Lands asserted their property had been previously cleared or otherwise did not warrant the Sending Lands designation. Recognizing this possibility — it was made well -known that the designations were based upon landscape scale analysis, but also that allowing Receiving or Neutral Lands designations to be surrounded by Sending Lands designations (Swiss cheese concept — holes of Receiving or Neutral Lands within Sending Lands) was not acceptable, the BCC included a GMP provision giving a one year window in which owners of Sending Lands property that share a boundary with either Receiving Lands or Neutral Lands could submit data and analysis in an effort to demonstrate that, as of the date of adoption of the RFMUD (June 19, 2002), the Sending Lands designation was not warranted. Also, staff would re- evaluate the data used in 2002 (panther telemetry data, red - cockaded woodpecker nesting and foraging habitat data, land cover classification data, etc.) to determine the boundaries of Sending Lands. Please see the GMP provision below. Future Land Use Element (FLUE) RFMUD Sending Lands "11. Adjustment to the Sending Land Boundaries. For all properties designated Sending Lands where such property is contiguous to a Sending Land/Neutral Land boundary or Sending Land /Receiving Land boundary, the County will provide written notice to the property owners to advise of the opportunity to submit additional data and analysis to the County in an attempt to demonstrate a change to the boundary is warranted. Said written notice will be provided within three months of the effective date of these Rural Fringe amendments. Within one year from the date these notices are sent, the County will initiate a Growth Management Plan amendment to consider boundary changes, based upon the data and analysis, as may be warranted. Under the following conditions, adjustments may be proposed to Sending Land boundaries: a) The property is contiguous to Neutral or Receiving Lands; b) Site specific environmental data submitted by the property owner, or other data obtained by the County, indicates that the subject property does not contain characteristics warranting a Sending designation; c) An adjustment to the Sending land boundary requires an amendment to the Future Land Use Map." During the allotted one year period, twelve submittals were received comprised of 98 parcels (but only 90 are under consideration as two are already designated Neutral Lands and six were subsequently withdrawn). The total acreage of these 90 parcels is ±3,606 though that includes roughly 1,245 acres of Receiving Lands as five parcels have split Sending /Receiving Lands designations, leaving about 2,361 acres of actual Sending Lands. Per BCC direction in October 2005, contiguous parcels under the same ownership are to be viewed as a single property for purposes of determining if the property is contiguous to Receiving or Neutral Lands. However, 2 Agenda Item 4.0. in viewing the submitted data and analysis for purpose of determining the appropriateness of Sending Lands designation, each tax parcel is viewed separately. Given that the burden is on the property owner to demonstrate the Sending Lands designation is not warranted, staff's approach is to look for conclusive evidence. Most of the submittals simply verify the existence of native vegetation on the subject parcels. The attached re- designation spreadsheet identifies each tax parcel, its location, staff's recommendation and rationale, and other information. As noted on the spreadsheet, and on the two maps identifying the 96 parcels, staff is recommending only 16 parcels be re- designated from Sending Lands to Neutral or Receiving Lands. These 16 parcels are highlighted on the spreadsheet, and outlined in red on the maps. One issue unrelated to the submitted data and its evaluation pertains to authorization of property owners for their property to be submitted and evaluated in this process. Some agents have submitted a notarized letter of authorization to demonstrate they have the legal authority to represent the owners of the subject parcels for which they have submitted data and are requesting a re- designation; however, some have not — and may not have been previously advised by staff of the need to do so. (The owners of one property listed under the agent Don Lester /15,000 Coalition recently met with staff and advised they never granted authorization to that agent or any other to represent them in this process.) Only a property owner or their authorized agent may petition the County to request a GMP amendment. Therefore, staff will advise all agents and property owners for which a notarized letter of authorization has not been provided, of the need to do so; failure to provide such a letter will likely result in the affected -- properties being withdrawn from this GMP amendment requesting re- designation. Finally, a GMP amendment such as this would ordinarily be evaluated for impacts upon infrastructure, effect upon the TDR program, compatibility considerations, etc. However, amendment is being reviewed only under the specific criteria established in the FLUE and stated above, as it is a special provision authorized by the BCC in the 2002 Rural Fringe GMP amendments (which were subsequently found to be in compliance with state statutes by the Florida Department of Community Affairs). Note: Two property owners are participating in this petition and have filed their own petition -- I.M. Collier Joint Venture, petition CP- 2005 -8; and, Francis and Mary P. Hussey, CP- 2005 -12. STAFF ANALYSIS: As previously noted, staff has reviewed each property to determine if it abuts Receiving or Neutral Lands, and has reviewed the data and analysis submitted by property owners and has re- reviewed data used by the County in 2002 to determine if either conclusively demonstrates property characteristics do not warrant Sending Lands designation. The results of these analyses are indicated on the attached re- designation spreadsheet. As to GMP consistency, this is a proposed amendment to the countywide Future Land Use Map as specifically allowed by the FLUE. For those properties that are re- designated, they will be subject to all GMP requirements and limitations of the new Future Land Use Map designation, including the native vegetation retention requirements of the Conservation & Coastal Management Element. FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS: Staff's determination for each parcel is identified on the attached re- designation spreadsheet. Staff is recommending only 16 parcels be re- designated, as noted on the spreadsheet and as identified on the two attached maps (in red cross hatch). Agenda Item 4.0. County staff duly advertised, noticed and held the required NIM on January 17, 2007, at 5:30 p.m., at the Golden Gate Community Center. The meeting was attended by approximately 55 persons in addition to staff present. A meeting summary is provided below. Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department staff member David Weeks provided background of the Rural Fringe Mixed Use District (RFMUD) and its establishment in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) in 2002; generally explained allowable uses in Sending Lands, Receiving Lands and Neutral Lands; explained the GMP included a provision for owners of Sending Lands along the Sending /Receiving or Sending /Neutral boundary to submit environmental data in an effort to demonstrate that their property does not warrant the Sending designation and that the designation should be changed to the abutting designation (either Receiving or Neutral); noted that owners of 92 properties [now 90], comprising 3,646 acres [now 3,606], took advantage of this opportunity and submitted data; advised that, based upon staff's preliminary review of the data, only about 10 properties would be recommended for change, but noted the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) would make the final determination; and, advised that the County regulations require notification of owners within 1,000' of any of these properties for which the re- designation request was made so that they might be aware of requested land use changes that could potentially impact their property. Also, that the owners initiated these requests but that the County was taking the requested amendments forward through the hearing process at no cost to the owners. David referred to the table at the back of the room which contained his business cards for future contact; a sign -up sheet as sometimes people want there to be an official record to show they attended; and, a handout containing excerpts from the GMP (RFMUD of the Future Land Use Element) — this opportunity to request re- designation, and portions of the Sending /Receiving/ Neutral Lands designations. David invited the audience to contact him with any follow -up questions and /or to check the Department's website for additional information about this petition, e.g. hearing dates, Staff Report. Several questions were asked about Sending /Receiving /Neutral designations, such as what the allowable uses are [David explained]; if nearby owners would be notified of future development for those properties successful in this re- designation request [depends —yes if a public hearing process is involved, e.g. conditional use, no if not, e.g. building permit]; about the GMP amendment process, including whether they could file a request for re- designation [David explained; yes, anyone has a right to submit an application but at their own expense]; whether the County owned any of this property [no] or initiated this request on behalf of any owner [no]. Various comments were made pertaining to the history of the RFMUD, the process to establish it, the Rural Fringe Advisory (citizen) Committee appointed by the BCC, opinions about the RFMUD and the (inappropriate) designation of some properties as Sending Lands, various procedural matters of state law (e.g. dispute resolution process, visioning process). In response to a question, David advised the first set of hearing dates as: Environmental Advisory Council — first Wednesday in February [7'h]; Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) — March 5, with carryover dates to be decided at the CCPC's 1/18/07 hearing; BCC — June 4 with carryover date to 5`h. EAC RECOMMENDATION: The Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) held their hearing on this petition on February 7, 2007. At that time, staff advised that properties under ownership by Curtis Mitchell (map property numbers 12 -16, 93) were withdrawn from this petition at petitioner's request, thus staff's recommendation was modified accordingly. Also, staff advised they would be making a Agenda Item 4.0. site visit with the petition agent for map property number 1 and 2. The EAC recommended approval for re- designation per staff's modified recommendation, except for map property numbers 1 and 2, which were continued to the March 7 EAC hearing so that interested EAC members could make a site visit. LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: This staff report has been reviewed and approved by the Office of the County Attorney. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition CPSP- 2005 -14 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation to transmit - but only for map property numbers 1, 36 -41, 43, 56, 61, 70, 79, 91, 92, 95 and 96 (identified on the attached re- designation spreadsheet, and depicted in red cross hatch on the two attached maps) - to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. [At the CCPC hearing, staff will report on its site visit to view map property numbers 1 and 2; as a result of this site visit, the preceding staff recommendation could be slightly modified.] Agenda Item 4.0. PREPARED BY: fN DATE: DAVID WEEKS, AICP, PLANNING MANAGER COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: IV DATE: RANDY COHEN, AICP, DIRECTOR COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: 0_p 1 DATE: MA RI T S �G � ASSISTANT COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE OF THE COLLIER COUNTY ATTORNEY APPROVED BY: JO EPH K. SCHM IT T , ADMINISTRATOR DATE: C MMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & NVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION PETITION NO.: CPSP- 2005 -14 Staff Report for the March 5, 2007, CCPC Meeting. 2 - Zo -,j �- NOTE: This petition has been scheduled for the June 4, 2007, BCC Meeting. COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION: MARK STRAIN, CHAIRMAN Transmittal CCPC Staff Report CPSP -05.14 G: Comprehensive \Comp. Planning GMP DATA \Comp. Plan Amendmenta�2005 Petitions \CPSP- 2005.14, Sending Lands Re- designation dw(2.19 -07 Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: ® Townsend O David Lawrence Center Q Colonnade Sincerely, Name z Address 2 WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT ON THE CORNER OF YOUR STREET GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY? 2-12-07; 3:03PM;CC TAX COLLECTOR 'N A; W. Michele Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples IFL3410C ;2397935595 # 1/ 1 f, 0 Please register my/our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: >(�Townsend 0 David Lawrence Center �lonnade Sincerely, Name Address 70-72V 21- S� February 19, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, A1CP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca@Collicrgov.net From: Property Owner across the pkwy: 3115 700' St. SW, Naples, Florida Please register my strong objection and my position as a Poverty owner across the street and that will be directly adversely affected by any change to the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan. 1 am against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. This pacific NE corner of Golden Gate and Livingston will increase traffic and detract from my view. If, when myself or a family member were to live at the parcel directly across the street from the development my view and tenants views of my house would be an invasion! When 1 choose to build a residence for myself or a family member the value of the atmosphere of the lot and the cash value would he decreased as a result of a commercial development across the street. My property would lose value due to other parcels being sliced off and developed by big dollar developers. This area would be just another commercial development versus the unique appeal it currently has as close in estate homes with acreage and horse property. The are would not be the jewel it is and it would not fit for residential use. My property would be greatly effected if this parcel and others go commercial on golden gate parkway, which will happen if you let this except get the ball rolling to big money! The specific project objected to is the Townsend project at the NE corner at Golden Gate and Livingston. However, also object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. khn E. Grant Property in Question: 3115 700' Street SW,Naples, Florida Residence: 2910 700 Street S W,Naples, Florida Coll: 239 - 269 -1950 8£0 /£00'd 010# 8Z:9I LOOZ /OZ /ZO £Ob9£6962 OliNINn S39tl91dm l8vw:woaj rep 10 ur UI:uP UUDPI Urent Feb 18 07 10230 William td Grant February 19.2007 Ma h&chsle Motxa, AICP Pdricipal Plaooer Comptahmeive Planning Dept. 2800 North Hats idtat Dr. !Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239213 -2946 E -rwDt Michele [v(ocw ®Coiliergov�et From: Golden Gift Pkwy property owner 61010 Golder Gate Pwky, NOON, Florida 1&12914 Lh -I/41 P. 1-['13 -401 -1040 P.I 02/19/2007 19:57 4001 P,00]/00] Please mgister my objection and my position as a propmty owner that will be d'veofly adversely affecled by any change to the existing policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan. I Iron against any changes thst would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard This will reduoR the teceeaaibility to my lot when T choose to build a residence duo to increased traffic. Any commetcial development will increase and slow bribe. My property would lose value duo tc other frontage parents being sliced off and developed by big dollar developers. 'This area would be just another commercial strip center and not fit for residential ass. The apeol fic projtsct objeetsd to is the Townsend project at the NE comer at Golden Gate and Livingaem. 1 object to Ray Commercial Develolu went cn Goldm Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently M d&, should be adhatrd to with No Areendtnmts approved. There are Moro then enough commercial pmjems carraedy being dwdopod an Pine Ridge, trams Barbara and Radio Roads to support skis community. Siacerol C win ism . Gran Propany m Quaationr 6910 Golden Gana Pkwy Nxples, Florida Reside"; 102 North Harvard Blvd, Loa Angeles, Ca 90004 Cell: 213 -309 -8000 Rx time:02/19/2007 14:12 880/b00'd 010# 091 LOOZ/OZ/ZO Rx No.:994 P.001 SOb9£6966Z 031X -M S30t idom idvAS:woad February 13, 2007 5881 Golden Cate Parkway Naples, Fl. 34116 Dear Ms. Mosca, I am attaching this letter to the form reg;.steaing my objection to the Planning Commission Approval to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between lavingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. First, may I preface my remarks with a sense of pessimism and defeat because I am old enough to know and have seen that the commercial interests will prevail regardless of the justice or rightness of the cause. Nevertheless, I shall voice my objections without any doubt as to the outcome; as I would fed that my rights as a citixeu were abrogated were I not to express my objections. Second: The character of the Parkway currently has a semNance of tranquility with modest housing on ample lots with marry trees, shrubs and typical Florida growth. It gives a sense of openness, space indicating that people five in this area- In the late afternoon the school buses stop along the street and children disembark who resides along the intersecting streets, from 70+ to 58a'_ There are no stores or business establishments competing for customers and Ong the stop and go flow of traffic. Third: the present occupants of various establishments along the Parkway are churches and day care centers, and a bridge club. The David Lawrence Cotter has the appearance of a residential facility much like facilities where seniors are cared for. The Center blends in well with the houses, churches and community ambience. Fourth: I suggest you look at streets Eke Davis, Radio, Pine Ridge, that have been transformed from settings of quiet neighborhoods on the outskirts of Naples with residential enclaves to comutiencialized over wilt stores and offices dominating their sections of the area. None particularly attractive and all destroying the simplicity of formerly convenient roadway that was wnencui nbered with commercial establishments. I hope and pray you and the Commission will listen to my objection as a resident who has loved the environment of this area and the gracious appearance of the Parkway as it is now. Yours truly, Herbert Hoover Herman Feb 09 07 02:03p Karl Ehlers 239 261 -4921 p 1 L- To Michele Mosca From Mr. & Mrs. Karl Ehlers 2695 646 St. Sw Naples Fl 34105 2675 64's St SW Dear Michele We bave been residents here on 641° St. SW for 32 years. In that time many attempts to commercialize the real estate along Golden Gate Pkwy. have been proposed and have failed. The reason is still the same! The people who live here don't want it You people in the planning dept. ought to be ashamed at what you are doing to the area The new developments on Livingston Rd are ridiculous. The houses are to close and the density too high for the infrastructure. Pine Ridge Rd is a nightmare already and Golden Gate parkway will be the same in a very short time. Just Say No To the Developers No Commercialization of Golden Gate Pkwy! Thank You Karl & Gail Ehlers i ���.��s - z� � - y�zl Message Page 1 of 1 MoscaMichele From: peter waltbillig [pwaltbillig @sv4a.rr.com] Sent: Saturday, February 10, 2007 9:19 AM To: MoscaMichele Subject: COMPREHENSIVE PLANNING DEPART -- GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY REZONING ISSUES Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Ms. Mosca I live at 2901 70th Street; (since 1974). 1 was aware of the "zoning and planning" issues at that time -- basically there were challenges to the residential zoning, but there has been a history of strong indications from your office over the years that the Golden Gate "corridor" would remain a residential area, and would not convert to commercial use. This area was planned for Residential and should continue to be Residential. Please register my objection to Planning Commission Approval of any changes to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. This was and should continue to be a Residential Community. This area of Collier County has ample Commercial zoned /usable land available. There is no need to have this area converted to commercial usage other than for the personal wealth of some land owners. It is not in the good of the community. Peter and Linda Waltbillig 2901 70th Street 262 -2776 2/26/2007 Page 1 of 1 MoscaMichele From: Frances B. Stephan [fstephan @earthlink.net] Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:45 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: rezoning GG parkway Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Michele Mosca, Principal planner Please register our objection to change policy 5.2.3. of the Golden Gate Master plan to allow commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. We are specifically in objection to the Townsend project. The Townsend family was well aware of the local when they bought the property and the master plan should not be changed sorely for their benefit. We are next door to their property and are well aware of the noise problem. We have lived there for 23 years, raised our children, and watched the county grow. Adding more traffic via commercial buildings along the parkway is certainly not going to help, in fact it will only add to the noise and traffic. There is a lot of wildlife in the area mainly because of the large residential yards. Just this month I have seen Great Horned Owls, Pileated Woodpeckers, Downy woodpeckers and a Fox Squirrel, among the more common song birds and animals. We all strive to keep our neighborhood pleasant and a wonderful place to raise children. If the Collier County Commission would like to keep fine decent contributing families in Collier County, then our neighborhoods need to be protected. Please, do not change the policy for the benefit of a few while the rest of us strive to maintain an enviable standard of life. Thank you very much, Francie Stephan and Paul Stephan 2955 70th St SW Naples FL 34105 239 - 263 -2813 2/23/2007 Z/ Townsend Request.txt To whom It May Concern: Re Townsend Request On Monday, January 22, we attended a meeting hosted by agents of a Mr. Joseph Townsend, who owns a five acre lot on the northeast corner of Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway. Mr. Townsend wants to rezone the property to allow for commercial development. The county currently has a policy which prohibits further commercial development on Golden Gate Parkway, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The meeting was attended by a smattering of home - owners from the immediate area as well as representatives from Golden Gate Civic Association and wyndemere. A few speculators, who have bought land on the Golden Gate corridor, also attended the meeting. The speculators supported Mr. Townsend's request, claiming that economic forces dictated the inevitability of commercial development along the corridor. The home- owners generally were not in favor of his request, supporting existing policy and citing increased traffic concerns. we were initially sympathetic to the plight of the owner. The land in question lies on a corner of two three -lane feeder roads, and has become less desirable as residential propert y. if the owner had resided on the property when it was definitely rural, with only a two -lane road abutting, we felt that 'progress' had dealt him a bad hand. However, when we checked the Tax Assessor's web site, we found that Mr. Townsend purchased the property in 2003. At that date he surely was aware of what was in store for Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway. Our sympathy for Mr. Townsend's position was modified. commercialization of the Golden Gate corridor from Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard has implications for more interests than just the home - owners in the immediate area. it is the gateway to the City of Naples when the Golden Gate 1 -75 interchange is opened. we strongly urge you to preserve the existing non - commercialization policy and reject Mr. Townsend's proposal. Richard and Valerie Hafely 2790 66th St Sw Naples, FL 34105 Page 1 Page I of 1 MoscaMichele From: joan @kilboumassociates.com Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 1:11 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Golden Gate Parkway at Livingston Road Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Attn: Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP From: Joan S. Gardner, resident of 70th Street SW Re: Golden Gate Parkway Corridor Plan Dear Ms. Mosca, My husband and I bought our home on 70th Street SW 17 years ago because it was a quiet residential neighborhood with a sizeable lot. Over the years, much has changed - primarily the completion of Livingston Road which abuts our property. We now hear trucks and horns and motorcycles in our back yard - but, still, understand and appreciate that Livingston Road serves some good and improved purposes. We expressed concern when, recently, the left turn lane onto 70th Street SW was eradicated. This forces us to drive to 68th Street SW and make a dangerous U -turn into traffic - just to get back to our "quiet, dead -end street' and home. Cars speed down Golden Gate Parkway, coming off the hill over 1 -75. Very soon, the new 1 -75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway will be open - allowing more traffic to speed down Golden Gate Parkway - making our daily drive more dangerous than ever. Truly, this area is "an accident waiting to happen." Since the Comprehensive Planning Department has NOT listened to what we, the citizens of this area, really want, I am hopeful that at least you can stop any commercial development from our residential neighborhood. No development of a 40,000 sq.ft. office building in a residential -zoned area: 5 acres at the NE corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road. (Is this being referred to as the Townsend property ?) We do not want/need any more added traffic. For safety and because of the existing policies (restricting any more commercial zoning), do not allow any further commercialization of Golden Gate Parkway. I would be happy to hear back from you, but am doubtful. As 1 said, the City Planners do not seem to listen /care about what we think. Sincerely, Joan S. Gardner 2639 70th Street SW Naples, FL 34105 2/26/2007 rage t of 1 ZI MoscaMichele From: chstealth @aol.com Sent: Sunday, January 28, 2007 8:56 AM To: MoscaMichele Cc: commercialbldg @aim.com I live in Naples on 68th st sw. My neighbors and I OPPOSE the development of commercial property anywhere along Golden gate pkwy between 68th st sw and 70 th st sw. Do we not have enough building going on in our area? When is enough going to be enough? We have a quiet neighbor hood, the last thing we need is a gas station at the end of our road. Crime ? ? ? ? ? ? ?? That will go up most defitnely!!!!!!!! No wonder everyone wants to move away from naples, soon there will be no grass, all concrete!!!!! Thank you Carol & Mark Austin Checkout the new AOL. Most comprehensive set of free safety and security tools, free access to millions of high - quality videos from across the web, free AOL Mail and more. 1/29/2007 Page 1 of 1 MoscaMichele From: Diane Ponton [pontondi @hotmail.coml Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 8:16 PM To: MoscaMichele Cc: pontondi @hotmail.com; PontonRi @collier.kl2.fl.us Subject: Golden Gate Parkway changes Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Dear Ms. Michele Mosca I would like to share my objection to the Planning Commission Approval of any change to the Ploicy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway Between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara. When this road expansion and new interchange was explained to the residents, we were assured this would area would not be permitted to become a Pine Ridge nightmare. We were informed it would remain a "beautiful gateway to Naples ". We beg you not to allow strip malls, gas stations and such to take over this beautiful residential area. Now the traffic flows smoothly and adding commerical zoning will only create a traffic nightmare like that of Pine Ridge and Immokalee Roads. Sincerely, Diane Portion 3235 58th ST SW Naples, FL 34116 From .predictions to trailers, check out the MSN_ Entertainment Guide to the AcademvAwards* 2/26/2007 MoscaMichele From: Alice Waggoner [AWaggoner @arclp.coml Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 2:43 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Golden Gate Master Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Please register my objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. I specifically object to the Townsend and the Colonnade projects. I do not want any new commercial uses between Livingston and Santa Barbara. These streets are residential and I hope they remain that way. Sincerely, Alice Waggoner 3089 64th St. SW Naples, Fl., 34105 262 -7341 2/23/2007 Page t of 2 MoscaMichele From: Robin Doyle Irdoyle @doyleresolution.coml Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:19 PM To: MoscaMichele Cc: 'Kris Doyle'; 'Tom Collins' Subject: Rezoning Petitions for Golden Gate Parkway Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Ms Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Dear Ms Mosca: I reside on 70th St. SW, south of Golden Gate Parkway. My wife, Kris and I are opposed to the addition of new commercial uses along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. There are a number of reasons we believe the addition of commercial zoning is not good planning for our area or for the County as a whole. The county has grown dramatically since we built our home on 70d' St in 1978. We have seen Airport Road and Golden Gate Parkway grow from two -lane roadways to major arteries. The Interstate made its appearance and now Livingston Road has opened. The one constant through all of this has been the residential nature of our neighborhood. We chose not to live in a gated community, believing our part of the Estates would always remain residential. It would be easy to say that growth is inevitable, but to allow commercial to creep into the Golden Gate corridor would spell the end of the quality neighborhood we now enjoy. Commercial retail and office may be compatible with residential in some urban settings, but it is not compatible with our neighborhood where minimum lots are 2.25 acres and many residents have horses or other animals. When the need for an interchange at Golden Gate Parkway and the Interstate became apparent, I was a member of the Board of the Collier County Economic Development Council. The EDC supported construction of the interchange with the stipulation that commercial zoning not be allowed. The thinking then was that the Golden Gate interchange would be the gateway to the heart of Naples, and we should show the quality of life we enjoy here by the lack of commercial properties cluttering this corridor. The EDC has long maintained that people and businesses are drawn to Naples by the quality of life. If we don't protect our quality of life, we will have little to offer companies who would bring high wage, economically diversified jobs to the County. I attended the informational meeting hosted by representatives of the owner of the Livingston Road property. At that meeting, there were many who spoke in opposition to the proposal. The only person who spoke in favor was the owner of a parcel which fronts on Golden Gate Parkway and who expressly stated that he supported the petition because he wanted to have commercial property, too. This shows what will happen to the community if these changes are allowed. We will be inundated with additional requests for changes to the Comp Plan and the zoning. 2/26/2007 Page 2 of 2 When the developers of Grey Oaks petitioned for their PUD several years ago, they requested commercial along Livingston Road south of Golden Gate Parkway. There were objections to that proposal because of the character of the neighborhood and the possibility of "commercial creep." As a result, the petitioner changed the PUD to provide for residential property at that location. For the same reasons, the owner of the property at the northeast comer of that intersection should not be allowed to rezone to commercial. Policy 5.2.3 was approved several years ago to implement protection against the changes that are being requested here. The policy should be enforced and not modified. The changes requested are not good for the neighborhood or for the County. Sincerely, Robert E. Doyle, Jr. ( "Robin ") 320170" St. SW Naples, Florida 34105 239 - 263 -0929 2/26/2007 v Van Zandt Williams, Jr. 1626 Chinaberry Way Naples, Florida 34105 Ph: 239 - 262 -5093 Fax: 239- 262 -8702 vanzandt@princeton.edu January 2, 2007 Ms. Linda Bedtelyon Community Development & Environmental Services Administration 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Ref: Property at 11150 Livingston Road; Naples (Folios 38100400006 & 38100360007) Dear Ms. Bedtelyon: My wife and I are residents at 1626 Chinaberry Way in Grey Oaks, near the subject property. We saw the notice of the meeting on Dec. 19, but we were away at the time and could not attend. However, we would like to go on record as strongly protesting any commercial or industrial development on that site or any other in that area. We both believe the future land use map is correct in not allowing commercial development along Golden Gate Parkway in this area for several reasons: 1. Both Livingston and Golden Gate in this area are now critical traffic carriers and anything that disrupts the flow of traffic there could significantly affect this critical purpose. 2. While it might seem that a small site as this would have minimal impact, it will set an irreversible precedent for the whole block bounded by Livingston, Golden Gate, I -75 and Wyndemere. Given the intensive development of the section along Pine Ridge to the north, there is little justification for creating a new commercial center here. Put another way, we don't need another strip shopping center that may eventually fail and then become a part of a larger commercial center in the future. 3. The area is already filled with attractive residential homes in a heavily treed section of town. Such a development will create a real eyesore for the adjacent homes. 4. The Golden Gate corridor from 1 -75 to the west is soon to become a major access point . to the Naples area, and having this section continue to be a well landscaped residential/golf corridor down to the Gordon River offers a very attractive "entrance" to the Naples area. 5. Successful arguments to the effect that the land can't be sold (profitably) as residential property would perpetuate an unfortunate trend in Florida (and elsewhere) that any property near a large road or intersection must become commercial. We don't believe there's any justification for such claims, nor should the "opportunity" to capitalize on the capital investments of the citizenry at large be allowed to change thoughtful land use planning. In sum, we hope the planning authorities will stick to the original plan and NOT allow a change in use here. cc: Grey Oaks Property Owners Association Alcerely, Van Zandt Williams Jr. Myra N. Wiliams t February 12, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department Collier County Community Development & Environmental Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: NE corner of Livingston Road & Golden Gate Parkway Dear Ms. Mosca: I am writing this letter on behalf of the Wyndemere Homeowners Association to express our opposition to the proposed amending of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan which would allow for the change of use of that Parcel of Land located at the northeast corner of Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway from its current Estates Designation to the Livingston Road Commercial Subdistrict. As you know, Wyndemere which is located on Livingston Road consists o. .f633 households in a gated Community. It is our understanding that the approved Master Plan for Golden Gate Parkway currently prohibits commercial /retail development between Santa Barbara Blvd. and Livingston Road, except for those parcels that were "grandfathered" in at the time the Plan was adopted. Golden Gate Parkway will become the main gateway to Naples once the new I -75 interchange opens and it is critically important to the ambiance of Naples that this road remain an attractive thoroughfare in keeping with the existing character of the neighborhood instead of a congested commercial roadway similar to Pine Ridge Road. If this tract of land is permitted to be developed as a commercial site, it will create an unalterable change in the Livingston Road neighborhood. A commercial project at this location will create demand from contiguous lots to also be converted to commercial zoning since they will then be located adjacent to a commercial development. Approval of this site to commercial zoning will create pressure to eventually rezone the entire land between the intersection and Wyndemere, one parcel at a time. A similar fate will result for each residential lot on Golden Gate Parkway, east of the intersection. This prospect is real and contrary to all previous Planning Department decisions. )AA1 o`vners Lion Tel.: 239- 263 -0761 98 Wvndemere Wav Naples, Florida 34105 Fax 239 -263 -1543 Mosca letter Page 2 The traffic situation from a commercial /retail site at this location will be disastrous and unsafe. Ingress to the site is planned to be off of Golden Gate Parkway which has the potential to back up traffic dangerously close to an intersection that everyone agrees will become overburdened once the I -75 interchange is opened. In addition, it will be very confusing to have a right turn into a development so close to the right turn for Livingston Road. Egress will be equally bad; customers of commercial /retail development at this location will be required to exit the site on the northbound lane of Livingston Road. Cars turning right off Golden Gate onto Livingston Road within a few seconds will be confronted by cars leaving the commercial /retail site. Also those cars leaving this commercial /retail site onto Livingston Road and desiring to travel south will be forced to drive north to the traffic light and make a U turn at the entrance to Wyndemere and Grey Oaks, thus creating a hazardous situation for our residents as they exit Wyndemere. Ingresses and egresses so close to a major intersection will frustrate the designed purpose of arteries: to expedite safely the flow of traffic. In addition there is no demonstrated need for commercial /retail buildings at this intersection - -- retail stores and offices are already in close proximity to people living in the area. We strongly urge the Collier County Officials to abide by its previous decision to prohibit any future commercial or retail development along this section of the Golden Gate Parkway. To do anything else would (i) violate the County's prior commitment to residents in this area, (ii) create an unnecessary traffic burden on Golden Gate Parkway & Livingston Road and (iii) destroy the community standards already approved by the Master Plan. Very truly yours, Cam arr li, President W demer omeowners Association, Inc. February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: V Townsend David Lawrence Center t,"' Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: '14e_ Dater, BOO,. 44 L Ms. Michele W6s*i;AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL34104: Please register my/our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: 0 Towmend— C&Vrv-� 0 David Lawrence Center '-FI( Colonnade -h6 IgV-A-t,� Sincerely, Name _)Wy, Address 3yleg WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT ON THE CORNER OF YOUR STREET GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY?: -4 W. Michele Md",ACP Principal Planner' Comprehensive Planning Department 28Q6 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL34104 Please register my/our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: 0 Townsend 0 David Lawrence Center 41 Colonnade Sincerely, Name Irv, Address 1 C 5 � / , L/ - �-F MV WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT ON THE CORNER OF YOUR STREET GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY? 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Golden Gate, FL 34116 Michele R. Mosca Principal Planner Planning Commissioners: Petition CP- 2005 -04 Livingston Road Commercial Subdistrict We were involved in discussions since the early 1990's on plans to have an I -75 interchange on Golden Gate Parkway. The interchange has always been sold and requested that there would be no new commercial allowed going east and west of this intersection. This "No new commercial" mantra has been pitched for over 16 years. Golden Gate planned their Master Plan commercial zoning based on this promise. Naples residents found the new interchange palatable because of this promise. This I -75 interchange wouldn't have received support or ever been built had the prospect of added commercial zoning been possible at the intersection of Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway. Please vote down this proposal based on promises made to the community to allow the I- 75 interchange to exist. Keith Denny President Golden Gate Civic Association 4701 Golden Gate Parkway, Golden Gate, FL 34116 Michele R. Mosca Principal Planner Planning Commissioners: Petition CP- 2005 -05 Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict. (Santa Barbara/Golden Gate Parkway) We have a long history of working with the developer of this property in helping them come to a reasonable solution to commercial zoning and assisting residents to keep a pleasant home atmosphere. We reached a compromise a couple of years ago and this made for a peaceful coexistence between commercial and residential. The same residents requesting this huge increase in density of the zoning are the same people we have been trying to protect for so many years. It pains us to see these property owners trying to inflict the same intensity on what will become the new neighbors if this proposal is accepted. They may have finally reached a price at which they would sell out. This doesn't entitle them to sell out for their neighbors. We request you leave the zoning as it has been negotiated. It made sense a couple of years ago. It still does today. We want the property owners to have opportunity to use the commercial space they have been allotted. It isn't a reason to further encroach into a rural residential neighborhood. Through the Golden Gate Master Plan the community worked for three years to designate where commercial opportunities should exist in the community. This individual property owner has no right to change the rules strictly solely to provide greater opportunity of financial returns than should be allowed. The deals have already been made. We should all live with those deals. Keith Denny President Golden Gate Civic Association rage i oI i MoscaMichele From: duane taylor [dtaylor5 @swfla.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 8:45 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: ME corner GG Pkway and Livingston. Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue To whom it may concern, We have lived at 6761 Golden Gate Parkway approx. nine years and would like to see a comprehensive land planning change, starting with the ME corner of Golden Gate Pkwy. and Livingston, and continuing the affected length of Golden Gate Pkwy. The city has taken our neighborhood, put in huge street lights, expanded the road to 6 lanes all to which the result is traffic jams that stretch right past our driveway entrance on a daily basis! Not to mention the fact that our mailbox has been relocated 700 feet from our house without even our being notified. With the growing traffic has come the trash which is lost or thrown from vehicles, all of which ends up in our front yards. The drainage has been installed improperly and now we have a river running in our driveway full of cig. buts and trash every time it rains. The next project to be completed and opened in one month is a 4 -way I75 on and off ramp, can you imagine what is going to happen to traffic when it opens? This area is only a few miles from the beach, a couple miles from the mall and zoo and the closest exit to downtown! All involved are certainly invited to stop by and see for themselves. I feel a zoning change is the only possible way to correct what the county has created out of our area. Our neighbors feel the same way we do, and would like a chance to speak for themselves. This effects our lives in so many ways. Thank you for your time. Gratefully, Mr. & Mrs. Duane Taylor 6761 Golden Gate Parkway 239 -289 -6789 2/23/2007 Page 1 of 1 MoscaMichele From: Cavin1110 @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 2:18 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: commercialization of Golden Gate Pky Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue Ms. Mosca, I purchased property at 6545 Golden Gate Parkway in 1979, when it was a two lane road. I did not purchase this land as an investment, but as my home. I do not wish to live on a six lane highway and I am in favor of the comprehensive land plan amendment. I have my property up for sale. Laura Cavin 6545 Golden Gate Pky Naples, FI.34120 2/23/2007 Page 1 of 1 MoscaMichele From: Capitalhomesfl @aol.com Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:10 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Petitian CP- 2005 -4 Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue Dear Michele; My name is Darryl Damico, I own a single family house at 6211 Golden Gate Parkway. It is located at the north east comer of the northern on ramp to 1 -75. Needless to say it is no longer rural prime residential property. Who would want to live on a 6 lane highway on an on ramp? For this reason I am in favor of the Comprehensive Land Plan change at the NE corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Livingston Road. I would like to see a commercial zone on my property as it has no other use and I believe all interchanges along 1 -75 are zoned commercial. I lost property value when the County took my land and value away and will continue to do so. But they could grant it back if they were to zone it commercial. Please consider my situation and vote for a commercial zone. Thank you for your time and consideration in this matter. Sincerely, Darryl J. Damico 2/23/2007 Yage t of 2 MoscaMichele From: Kasischke, Carolyn [ Carolyn@rustandchristopher.comj Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 6:26 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Comprehensive Land Use Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue Dear Ms Mosca, My name is Carolyn Kasischke and I am a property owner on Golden Gate Parkway. The land was zoned multi- family when we purchased it 20 years ago. Quite a bit of the property was taken for the 1 -75 interchange, leaving us with a parcel that is too small to develop, as we no longer have the necessary footage. In addition I cannot conceive of anyone wanting to build residential buildings right on an interstate or along the Golden Gate Corridor. I have been told our property value has greatly declined, and that the Property Appraiser's Office has reduced our assessment. The only alternative for us is to be able to sell our property to someone else in order to have a large enough parcel. From my point of view it only makes sense that the Golden Gate Corridor is rezoned to commercial. Following the completion of all road projects that road will become a major thoroughfare, no longer suitable for strictly residential projects. I want to add my name to those who support a change in the comprehensive land use plan to allow commercial development on Golden Gate Parkway Thank you for your attention to this matter. Carolyn Kasischke Rust, Christopher & Company, P.A. BUSINESS CONSULTANTS CERTIFIED PUBLIC A(COUNTANTS 6609 Willow Park Drive, Suite 100 Naples, FL 34109 -8917 Phone: 239.514.5028 x217 Fax 239.514.7019 wA .rustandchnstoph_er.corn IRS Circular 230 Disclosure To ensure compliance with requirements imposed by the IRS, we inform you that any U.S. federal tax advice contained in this communication (including any attachments) is not intended or written to be used, and cannot be used, for the purpose of (i) avoiding penalties under the Internal Revenue Code or (ii) promoting, marketing or recommending to another parry any transaction or matter addressed herein. The information contained in this electronic mail is personal and confidential and is intended only for the person or persons named above. This message and the information contained in this electronic mail may be include information that is confidential and /or subject to the accountant - client privilege. If the reader of this message is not the recipient named above or an authorized agent of such recipient responsible for delivering it to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that you have received this electronic mail in error, and that any review, dissemination, distribution, or copying of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by telephone or electronic mail and delete the original 2/23/2007 MoscaMichele From: Ronald Derr [ronaldderr @yahoo.com] lent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 12:07 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Comp. Plan change to Rezone GoldenGate Parkway Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue Greetings Ms.Mosca, My name is Gerald "Bud "Frey,and I own property on Goldengate Parkway,between Livingston rd. and the new interchange. I am in FAVOR of and SUPPORT the effort to change the current residential zoning to COMMERCIAL zone. I have watched my property decrease in size and value,due to road expansion,based on current zoning. Who in their right mind would want to build a home in this area on the parkway as is currently zoned? The people who resist this zone change will not lose their property value,as they are not on the Parkway,as we are. They could care less about us,we lose our property value,and they keep theirs. This is very one sided and unfair. I have noticed that owners at the northeast corner of Goldengate PKWY and Livingstone rd. are petitioning to rezone to build an office building. This type of commercial would be environmentlly friendly blending in. This type could be the norm along the parkway retaining a classy appearance. along the parkway. Ms. Mosca, THANK YOU for receiving my email, and would you please place this into Public Records for reference to the March 5th Petition meeting. Could you also please email me at the address below for comfirmation, thank you again. Respectfully, Bud Frey my address: budlakesbellsouth.net Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all -new Yahoo! Mail beta. http: / /new.mail.yahoo.com MoscaMichele From: Ronald Derr [ronaldderr@vahoo.com] lent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 4:40 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Golden Gate Parkway comp. plan change , rezone Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue Hello Ms.Mosca: We are Fred and Maureen Olsen, Naples residents. This subject is in relation to comprehensive Plan change for rezoning of the corridor on Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Rd and the interchange. We are in favor of a Comp. Plan change and for the re- zoning to commercial along this section of Goldengate Parkway. I ask that the GMP Amendment CO- 2005 -04, :Policy 5.2.3 be removed and rescinded to allow commercial zoning. Please record in Public Records for March 5th meeting on this subject and also please confirm via the following e- mail address, ronaldderr @Yahoo.com Thank you, respectfully, Fred Olsen 8:00? 8:25? 8:40? Find a flick in no time with the Yahoo! Search movie showtime shortcut. -° 'ittp:/ /tools. search.yahoo.com /shortcuts/ #news 1 MoscaMichele From: Ronald Derr ]ronaldderr@yahoo.com] Tent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 5:21 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Comp Plan change, Parkway Golden Gate, rezone Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue I am Robert Derr, property owner on Golden Gate Par kway, between Livingston Rd and the interchange. I attended the neighborhood meeting on Jan 22,2007 concerning the possible change of the comp, plan to allow commercial zoning between livingston road along that corridor to the interchange on ggpkwy. I am in favor and in full support of the Comp.plan Change to allow commercial development along this area of the parkway. since I have owned my property, the dynamics of this location have changed dramatically from a quiet two lane road to a noisy, busy, six lane expressway joined up to an interchange which will yield massive amounts of traffic and noise. This incredible change,potiently exceeding the pine ridge road tra£fic,is resulting in a devaluation of any residential planning that I might have on my property on golden gate parkway. I am sure the county would greatly benefit from huge property tax increases as a result of comp.plan change to re -zone commercial, the highest land use zoning. I ask that the GMP amendment: co- 2005- 04,policy 5.2.3. restricting any further conditional -use or commercial be REMOVED from the comp.plan allowing me to regain lost property value by re- zoning this area. THANK YOU Michele for reviewing this email. Would you please add this statement to the public records for the March 5th meeting,and also could you confirm this via the following email. Thankyou respectfully, Robert Derr confirm email: ronaldderr @yahoo.com Do you Yahoo!? Everyone is raving about the all -new Yahoo! Mail beta. http: / /new.mail.yahoo.com Pagel of 2 MoscaMichele From: DVatHurricaneStop [hurricanestop@bellsouth.net] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 7:30 PM To: MoscaMichele Cc: Hurricane Stop CC Subject: YES to Rezoning on Golden Gate Pkwy (Petition CP- 2005 -4) Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue Hello Michele, I also attended the 1 -22 -07 neighborhood meeting on rezoning the NE corner of Livingston and GGate Pkwy. I want to have my opinion noted in public records and would like to verify that this was accomplished. Can you send me a copy of the documentation? I am in full support of the effort to amend the future land use map and text to allow commercial development at this location. Furthermore, I feel that this effort is only the tip of the iceberg since many of my neighbors on Golden Gate Pkwy would like to see the entire corridor open to commercial development. The current residential zoning is inconsistent for a location on a very busy 6 lane road with an interchange nearby. Properties on the pkwy are now losing residential value and it is clear that properties are declining in appearance and maintenance. It is not practical to raise a family on such a busy road and many of us are looking to rent our homes to try to get a return on our investment. Proliferation of rental property will surely cause a further decline in appearance for the area. This is COUNTER PRODUCTIVE even for those who live off the pkwy on the side streets (many of whom oppose commercial development). Other unimproved properties along the pkwy are full of unsightly scrub brush and trees and are surely not an asset to the community. The only thing that makes sense is to allow commercial development along the pkwy and to control the development to assure that a high end land use plan is developed as was done at The Vineyards on Pine Ridge Rd. The benefit to the county will be millions in tax dollars and this will be achieved through the "highest and best use" of the properties. In effect what has happened to us on the pkwy is that we have been penalized by the widening and the interchange. Therefore, we are demanding our rights to be heard and be given a fair chance to improve our property values by rezoning the entire corridor. Further residential development of the area will need CONCURRENT development in residential commercial support such as grocery stores, gas stations, drug stores and general shopping. The area is in desperate need of such facilities now. Driving to Pine Ridge Rd. or Golden Gate is not a long term solution for shopping. Please do what makes sense: improve the commercial infrastructure of this area and improve the tax base for the county. The following language in GMP Amendment CO- 2005 -04, Policy 5.2.3: "no further commercial zoning for properties abutting GG Pkwy..." must be removed since it is inconsistent with the benefit of the majority of county residents and it restricts our rights as citizen to improve our property values. Thank you for listening and please send me confirmation that this was added to public records. Douglas Voita 6895 Golden Gate Pkwy Naples, FL From: MoscaMichele [ mailto :MicheleMosca2 @colliergov.net] Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 12:18 PM To: A] Bremerman - Subject: RE: Planning Meeting? (Petition CP- 2005 -4) PT11 2/23/2007 Yage 2 of 2 The Collier County Planning Commission is scheduled to hear the 2005 Growth Management Plan Amendments on March 5, beginning at 8:30 a.m. in the W. Harmon Turner Building (3rd floor Boardroom), located at the County Government Center, 3301 East Tamiami Trail, Naples. (As emphasized at the Neighborhood Information Meeting, it is unknown at this time if the Commission will hear all 13 private petitions on this date, this petition is scheduled to be heard 4th, but the Chair may choose to hear petitions out of order.) Please contact me should you have questions or need additional information. Regards, Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Collier County Government 239 - 403 -2466 From: ABremerman @gatesmcvey.com [ mailto :ABremerman @gatesmcvey.com) Sent: Wednesday, January 24, 2007 9:49 AM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Planning Meeting? Michele, I was in attendance at the public meeting on Monday night regarding the comprehensive land plan change for the NE corner of Golden Gate Pkwy and Livingston Rd. As I understand it there is a planning meeting on March 5th to be held at the county to discuss the possibility of an amendment to the comprehensive land plan. Can you let me know when, where, and with whom this meeting will be held? Thanks, AJ 2/23/2007 Page 1 of 1 MoscaMichele From: David Frey and Rebecca Leffler [sassybaby135 @earthlink.net] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 3:52 PM To: MoscaMichele Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue Dear Ms. Mosca, my name is David Frey,I own property on golden parkway near 66th street, north side on parkway. I have owned this property twenty years with the intention of building a home. but with the intense changes of a six lane highway and interchange about one quarter mile from me. there is little chance now that I or any of my family members would want to live in this area under these conditions with the intense noise, pollution, and traffic. as a result, my home investment value has decreased under current zoning. I am very angry with this group of local people and no so local ;resisting in any change to current zoning, which robs me the ability to recapture lost property value. it is MY STERN EXPRESSION TO FAVOR AND SUPPORT OF A COMP. PLAN CHANGE TO ALLOW COMMERCIAL ZONING. some people mention school bus stopping as a reason to keep current zoning, but with large increases of traffic along this parkway, it would not matter what type of zoning, the traffic will be massive whether commercial or not. thank you Ms. Mosca., also would please place this e-mail into the public records for the march 5th meeting with confirmation via my following e-mail, thank you. David Frey 2/23/2007 Page 1 of I MoscaMichele From: Baatman74 @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 12:33 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Opinion on commercial development along GG Pkwy Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue MS. Mosca, I am totally and whole- heartedly IN FAVOR of changing the GG Master Plan to allow commercial development along the Golden Gate Parkway. On 9/11/2001, I petitioned the Commissioners to force the builders of this Interchange to place a full Cloverleaf here, which would have taken out my property where I have lived for the past 28 years. The Commissioners ignored me and allowed them to 'squeeze' this Interchange in around our homes, much like you see in New Jersey, I believe it has de- valued my property, so, yes, I vote FOR the commercial zoning... Thank you, Virgil Cottongim 3090 64th St SW Naples, FL 34105 -7300 239 - 262 -2656 2/23/2007 FEB -16 -2007 08:11 Naples Medical Center TO: MICHELE MOSCA FROM: GUS AND BESSIE PAPAGIANNIS RE: PLANNING MEETING (PETITION CP- 2005 -4 I LIVE AT 6721 GOLDEN GATE PKWY, AND I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COMPREHENSIVE LAND PLAN AMENDMENT OF THE NE CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE PKWY AND LIVINGSTON RD. BELOW ARE THE REASONS WHY. I DID NOT ASK FOR A SIX LANE HIGHWAY ACROSS THE FRONT OF MY PROPERTY. I DID NOT ASK FOR I -75 EXCHANGE TO GO IN, NOR DID I ASK FOR AN OVERPASS OVER AIRPORT ROAD. I DID NOT ASK FOR CONDITIONAL USES TO BE REMOVED FROM THE COMP PLAN LANGUAGE. THE COUNTY TOOK AWAY ALL CONDITIONAL AND COMMERCIAL USAGE POTENTIAL FROM MY PROPERTY AND LEFT ME WITH ESTATES ZONING. ALL THE ABOVE ITEMS LISTED WERE BEYOND MY CONTROL AND HURT MY PROPERTY VALUES. ALL 1 ASK FOR IS FOR MY LIFE SAVINGS TO REMAIN INTACT AND ALLOW ME TO GET THE HIGHEST VALUE FOR MY PROPERTY. THE COUNTY TOOK MY PROPERTY VALUE AWAY, AND NOW THEY SHOULD GRANT ME THE OPTION TO GIVE IT BACK. THAT IS WHY I AM IN FAVOR OF THE COMP PLAN AMENDMENT FOR THE NE CORNER OF GOLDEN GATE PKWY AND LIVINGSTON ROAD. TTHA/JNK YOU, Vl GUS PAPAGIA IS a// 6 / U � P7. p a'-, BESSIE PAPAGIANNIS P.01 rage 1 of t MoscaMichele From: robert uhlich [rtuhlich @yahoo.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 4:10 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Comp plan change Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue Dear Ms. Mosca. My name is Robert Uhlich and I am a property owner on the Golden Gate Parkway. I am highly in favor of the change in the comprehensive land use plan for the NE corner of Livingston Rd. and the G.G. Parkway. My property value as well as others in the area has plummeted.( Mr. Skinner's office agreed and reduced my assessment $ 1 00,000.)When I purchased the property it was zoned multi - family. The county took that away, and now has created a monster in my front yard. It should not be my responsibility to remedy what the county has done to myself and others in the neighborhood, but should be the sole responsibility of the perpetrator of this sad state of affairs. In short, Collier County change the land use plan. Thank you for your attention in this matter Robert Uhlich I would like to speak at the hearing. Have a burning question? Go to Yahoo! Answers and get answers from real people who know. 2/26/2007 VVI ea CID Uri t c5-1 C— t c` ( e �% 1 o a� ^ e �- / �4 -7- -j -cam 1 `�1 V\ YV4� o A� c a 1 0 l err= �1 �-• �� (� F7 � � yr � 1 '�- S �f Yom. �t'�1. V�•� 6f, YVN Y, Ij•t,}.7 iV t c—'S �� � e_ � ��-1L "ci � t .(,� esJ.I N �1 -� � i � � a dt e v� '� w � S -F r� � � s , �•lJ H-S fit` A � I �- �Uy�� //1 ✓c_ �O ���� n-�_ VA A-Y, eS r 1 L\ V� l 1 S i� I NAY' Cl�V d`oe'(� m e S eC l S�6 crx- c �a ii hL, l S �SSe /tit d� L u. i..� c o SCE tn� 'I a-v , vte4 i4SS'- 1b�3 MoscaMichele From: edwinkoert@msn.com ;ant: Monday, February 12, 2007 8:35 PM To: MoscaMichele Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue February 12, 2007 @ 8:30p.m. Re: Change in the comprehensive land use plan for the NE corner of Livingston Rd and Golden Gate Parkway Dear Ms. Mosca: My name is Edwin H. Koert, a sixty rear resident of Florida, of which thirty years was in Broward County (Hollywood /Ft. Lauderdale), and thirty years in Collier County (Naples). Believe me when I say, i §I have seen, understand, and have been impacted by the GROWTHi'. I understand the requirements for implementing changes to the comprehensive land use plan'. As a property owner on G. G. pkwy, I am very much in SUPPORT the above reference change. The County Comprehensive Land Use Planners are not doing justice to the property along G.G..Pkwy. Currently they bury their collective heads in the sand and perpetuating the existing residential zoning requirement. The County Land Use Planners need to become proactive, open their eyes and see the CHANGE, CHANGE, CHANGE that has taken place on both sides of G.G.Pkwy., between Santa Barbara and Airport Pulling Road. Facts: „I G.G.Pkwy. has been expanded into a SUPER HIGHWAY. „T Property(s) has plummeted adjoining G.G.Pkwy., Fact. As a result of the G.G.Pkwy. expansion, the I -75 on /off ramp, and the Airport Pulling Road Bridge, the property Appraisers Office, (Mr. Abe Skinner) after review of documentation, has agreed and reduced such value of my property, approximately $100K. „T Livingston Road has been made into a North /South artery, thus, contributing to additional traffic along G.G.Pkwy. „I Rush hour traffic in the a.m. and p.m. is increasing daily. „I A new G.G.Pkwy. and Airport Pulling Road BRIDGE, is in its final phase of construction. This super structure, when completed §will be a significant contributor to the increased traffic count along G.G.Pkwy. „I I -75 on and off ramp at G.G.Pkwy. is due to be opened soon. Traffic count you say? It is going to be one very bad dream. The bridge opening crossing Airport Pulling Road and the I -75 on /off ramp opening will not be pleasant for anyone living along G.G.Pkwy. „I G.G.Pkwy. is already a mixture of Commercial (Grandfathered) and Residential properties. It is time for the Collier County Land Use Planners to act and change the comprehensive land use plan. Specifically, change the properties adjoining G.G.Pkwy., between Santa Barbara and Airport Pulling Road from Residential to i §Commerciali . The onus to initiate change to the comprehensive land use plan should not be on the shoulders of the properties owners. The onus is the sole responsibility of our representative, via the Collier County Land Use Planning Department. Thank you for the opportunity to respond on such an important issue. If I am fortunate to be in Naples and time permitting, I would like to speak at the hearing. Sincerely, 1 Edwin H. Koert (239) 289 -4420 edwinkoert @msn.com MoscaMichele From: Steve Gunden [sgunden @swfla.rr.comj ant: Sunday, February 18, 2007 12:41 PM fo: MoscaMichele Subject: Golden Gate Parkway Zoning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Michele, I didn't realize the deadline to include comments in the CCPC package had passed. Regardless, I would still like to voice my opinion regarding the proposed zoning changes and plan amendments currently being considered by the Commission. I reside at 3210 66th Street SW with my wife. We purchased here in 1981 and built our home almost 25 years ago. We have raised our children in this neighborhood. During this time we have relied on wells for domestic /potable water and septic tanks for our waste disposal. Unit 29 of Golden Gate Estates lies east of the City of Naples utilities distribution territory. When Avatar provided utilities for Golden Gate City, we were outside of the boundaries of their service area too. Collier County Utilities does not have any central systems in the GG Parkway corridor. As you may be aware, there is a City of Naples raw water main on the south side of that roadway. Recently the Parkway was upgraded to 6 lanes with many improvements including dual sidewalks, bike lanes, landscaping, irrigation and street lights. No provisions to install central water or sewer were included in the work program. Interestingly, the water management system was permitted on private lands (all of our front yard swales). The "water quality" treatment system is within 200' of many of my neighbors drinking water systems. I have objected to this system from the first day I was made aware that the SFWMD permitted the cork. Guess where the new commercial parcels will drain? Yes, into that same swaie that passes by our front yards into the Golden Gate Canal. How can the qet_ permits to use the same system that the County is using for dry detention? is going 'toensure that the water in our private wells is safe for potable and domes' is use? How can someone purchase a property with changed to satisfy their business plan? their water management system on their' petitions, I cannot support either argu provisional use for the Townsend house was opened in the late 70's or early 80' guess what, it's Estates Zoning. sting zoning and expe t or demand that it be ould agree to allow D vid Lawrence to expand (passive use). As far as the other two Wyndemere obtained a conditional or that sales center (and adjacent utility plant) I£ that's expired, and I,l.msure it has, then Should the argument be presented that the commecia'I---u �ewould bring central water to the area, that has no bearing. They too, like the many churches in the corridor, can provide well and septic. I do not wish to pay impact fees, hook up to central systems and pay to abandon my systems just because we need another Mobil station and a Burger King for folks traveling on I -75. Let them get off at any of the other 3 exits (101, 107 and 111) within 10 miles of each other. Steve and Debbie Gunden 3210 66th Street SW Naples, FL 34105 239.262.0142 No virus found in this outgoing message. :hecked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.441 / Virus Database: 268.18.1/691 - Release Date: 2/17/2007 5:06 PM 1 Page 1 of 1 MoscaMichele From: Dolly Roberts [dolly @dbr- marketing.coml Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 5:03 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Please register our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to the above - referenced policy that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, including the Townsend and Colonnade projects. We do, however, support the proposed expansion effort for the David Lawrence Center. Thank you so much for your consideration. Eugenie B. & Donald A. Roberts 2840 68th St. SW Naples, FL 34105 2/26/2007 MoscaMichele From: Bill Johnston iadmbi1133 @yahoo.com] ' -ent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:17 AM ro: MoscaMichele Subject: > Re: Change in the comprehensive land use plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue Dear Ms Mosca, My name is Fred W Johnston and my property on Golden Gtae Parkway has been Beverly impacted by widening of the parkway and the large increases in traffic. I fully support the proposed land use change and think it should include many more areas on the parkway. Sincerely Fred W Johnston 6918 SW 30th Way Gainesville FL 32608 PH 352 335 2377 Be a PSJ game guru. Get your game face on with the latest PS3 news and previews at Yahoo! Games. http : / /videogames.yahoo.com /platform ?platform= 120121 1 Page 1 of 1 MoscaMichele From: Billpinusa @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:55 AM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Comprehensive Land Change G. G. Pky Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue Dear Ms. Mosca, I hope all is well. My name is Bill Johnston and I am a property owner on Golden Gate Parkway. My Property on Golden Gate Parkway has been severely impacted by the widening of the Parkway. I fully support the proposed change in the comprehensive land use plan for Golden Gate Parkway. Thank you for your time with this issue. All the best, Bill Johnston 334 Hamilton Shore Dr. Winter Haven, FL 33881 2/23/2007 Page I of 1 2 MoscaMichele From: Jeff Ugibson40 @swfla.rr.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 6:24 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: March 5th hearing on Growth Management Plan Amendments Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Blue Michele, We are writing to you to voice our support for the Comprehensive Land Plan Amendment that the Planning Commission is scheduled to hear on March 5th, 2007. Both my nephew (Norman Garcia) and I, own property directly on the Southwest Comer of the new Golden Gate Parkway / 1 -75 Interchange. The address of these properties is 63rd St. SW. Due to the new interchange, access to our property is no longer accessible from 64th St. SW, and is now only accessible from further west at 66th St. SW. To access our property, one must enter on 66th St. SW, turn left on the newly constructed road behind Centerpoint Church, cross over 64th St. SW, and then get on 63rd St. SW. This has significantly diminished our property value. Since Collier County has allowed this reduction in our property value to happen, we are both in support of the Amendment to the Comprehensive Land Plan, so that we can now, also get the highest and best use for our property. We both are planning to attend the meeting on March 5th Our contact information is as follows Jeff Gibson 239 - 595 -7668 Email: jgibson40@swfla rr.com Norman Garcia PDEL_H1@AOL.COM Sincerely, Jeffrey Gibson Norman Garcia 2/26/2007 February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We strongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commnercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend ✓ David Lawrence Center d Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this cormnunity. Sincerely, " Signed: l 1 e' `� % ✓t "y f. <'lr rL Date: February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 -403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: ' Townsend David Lawrence Center l� Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it cwTently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: $ Date: /l /fJf�f, � /of z Ms. Michele W6s`c4,,iAWP Principal Planner ` . i ` Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL34l )4 Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: W Townsend O David Lawrence Center O' / / Colonnade Sincerely, Name Address coin a Jan aaaey 2610 64th St. SW Naples, FL 34105 -7306 February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission_ We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend X David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Connnercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this cormnunity. Sincerely, Signed: �- 1� Date: wood cis( — /��� �`ii o v " February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: +f Townsend ✓ David Lawrence Center Z/ Colonade I object to any Corrunercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this conununity. Sincerely, Signed: Date: 2 _L.. I L February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 -403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific projects) objected to are checked below: `f Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Cotmnercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: (� F ��r Date: 15 O February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: (Townsend David Lawrence Center / ✓ Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, BENSON, KENNETH D =& LINDA 2995 70TH ST SW Naples, Florida 34105 Signed: c" e / Date: (' - 17-6 ,_ Ms. Michele M65ca ATCP Principal Planner` ' Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL341 Q4 Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: * Townsend David Lawrence Center t Colonnade Sincerely, Name Address 70 Ms. Michele M6§ca,,;AWP Principal Planner ` .5 Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL34104 Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend LL David Lawrence Center Colonnade Sincerely, Name � J+ '120 5 tom% e ` Address A ec j) /�--s j—f 3 � I S /,/ Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Cvlden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: 1) Townsend 4) David Lawrence Center 1) Colonnade Sincerely, �i i1 Mdress fl L/5 1f to 'y .5 S t�/ Jl� _ -3-41) U 5 T'd bT Si, 649 -Gee )Joo.Aa �iaja0 dgy:LO LO 60 9aj FED /15 /2007 /TEU 09:07 PM ADVANCED MEDICAL FAX No.239 566 9149 P. 001/001 1 Ms. Miohele,1.9 ii J 6T w ` g Principal Planii r Comprehensive Planning Department 28PG North Hppesttoe privo Naples FL34 f04 Please register myZ&bjection to Plantung Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate blaster Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(g) objected to are checked below: @� Townsend K3 / David Lawrence Center e Colonnade. sincerely, Name •. �i n� L Y� C t9�'� �`! ass S� l=L 3y /I February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosea@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 522.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new eonnnercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: rr Townsend c/ David Lawrence Center i,/ Colonade I object to any Comtnercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, i Signed: Date. v Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: �0 ownsend vid Lawrence Center Colonnade Sincerely, Name McJ� 5 L N Address '.,g 10 / j —t-� - t'a� z Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department Dear Ms. Mosca: I am a concerned property owner and parent. As a Naples resident for 7 years, I have seen Golden Gate parkway go from a 4 lane country road with no traffic lights and no street lights, to a 6 lane main road with a 75 interchange exit two blocks from my street. Needless to say we are not happy. There is extensive construction going on all around us. Good examples are Davis blvd and 951 towards Marco, where everything is being torned down to allow more space ?or further development. Naples as we knew it is no more. The reasons we move here from Miami's Dade County are disappearing. We do not want our backyard to become a corridor of gas stations and office buildings. We want Golden Gate Parkway from Santa Barbara Blvd to Livingston Road to remain residential. My three children ages 14, 9, and 5, are confused, concerned and scared, about all of the changes that are going on. This has become a much too frequent topic of conversation at the dinner table. My 9 year old is even having bad dreams about all of this as I am myself. Please Ms. Mosca I beg you to do everything in your power to stop further development of Golden Gate Parkway. My children thank you in advance. la (resident and owner, 2810 66t' St. SW) February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosea, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239- 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, r Signed: :. c� ' -tea i� Date: 1� ) ` �C> �''4'�% .'. %c• 41AN' Ms. Michele Nfti ca .t4TCP Principal Planner' Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL341p4' Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonnade Sincerely, Name Address (7A I "V� �W Feb -12 -07 11:04A Ms. Michele 1iictl piICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe chive Naples FI.34104 Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: O' Townsend David Lawrence Center O' Colonnade Sincerely, Name t lea. Address �fh ST' 6-11-1 P.03 February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept, 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 -403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 52.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: i 1--"Townsend David Lawrence Center --�Colonade I object to any Coimnercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, _1 Signed: V6 Z- � r1Y Page I of 1 2- MoscaMichele From: Mary [mary@doriaslandscaping.com] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 12:21 PM To: MoscaMichele Cc: Mary Doria Subject: Objection Golden Gate Parkway Re- zoning Follow Up Flag: Fallow up Flag Status: Red Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Please register our objection to Planning 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use _along Golden Gate _Parkway between_ Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. The specificproje_ct(s)_objected to-are, (x) below: x Townsend - x David Lawrence Center Colonnade We furthermore state that we object to any_ changes for Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa _Barbara _Blvd. of any nature. Sincerely, Mr. and Mrs. Rey Doria Homeowner for 28 yrs. @ 3145 58th Street S.W. Naples Florida 34116 P.O. Box 8539 Naples, Florida 34101 -8539 M J. Doria Doria's Landscaping, Inc. PO Box 8262 Naples, Florida 34101 (239) 455 -1419 extension 207 Fax (239) 455 -6213 www.doriaslandscap ng.com 2/26/2007 Feb -12 -07 11:04A P_02 Ms. Michele [gi6kA,-AICP .4 Principal Planner 4 Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL34104 Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonnade Sincerely, Name Addrest February 14, 2007 Ms, Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The ecific project(s) objected to are checked below: 7Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: _ Date: 6 �2%�Vlgo G 'i i� S T _s VV 2-12-07; 8:08 ;[)IVCC CONSTRUCTION 77W SP /7- 17- d )Ppy�, G40-&9r,6 2395925477 * I/ I Its. Michele k6" 7 t; Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe prive, Naples 171,341�04. vix , Z, Please register my/ow objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master plan that would allow new r Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Saw B s commercial use along . mbara Boulevard. IhO SPOCifiC project(S) objected to are checked below- (V/ Townsend V/ David Lawrence Center Q/ Colonnade Sincerely, February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosea@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: �/ Townsend %David Lawrence Center i/ Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, FOWLER. CHARLES W =& MARY ANN 2840 70TH STS W Naples, Florida 34105 �7� �, Signed: C � "� ri' - C�'c� � E -` Date:-2//K 6) 7 0 hJ %� i Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: 4/ Townsend David Lawrence Center 0//Colonnade Sincerely, Nai Address T'd 2LL9- T92-T46 SINN39 ANNU -1 ddE :TO LO OT 9a3 February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 -403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele MoscaGColliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: LI Townsend l/ David Lawrence Center :,rColonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this cotmnunity. Sincerely, n l j - O Signed: Date:_( L iYi+ t L February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept_ 2500 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, Ft. 34104 Phone: 239 -403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new conunercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specificproject(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Conu iercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this cotmnunity. Sincerely, Signed: D ?. �. � ate: February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239- 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this connnunity. Sincerely, Signed: c � G' Date: GRANT, GLENN E =& DEBRA 2910 70TH ST SW Naples, Florida 34105 February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2300 North Horseshoe Dr, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new com rnercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: XTownsend k David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Connnercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: ' Q2. �) � G` rl r -- Date: if—] GRANT, GLENN =& DEBRA 2851 68TH ST SW Naples, Florida 34105 FEB 20,2007 13:18 5668558 Page 1 February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planncr Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horscshoc Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext.2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @g Colliergov.nct Please register my objection to the following projects with dic Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Cate Master Plan to remain in effect. We arc against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. ( ,o O z 1 N\ 0q 'rhe speoilic project(s) objected to are chucked below: /Townsend `� ,)avid Lawrence Center t_/t`olonadu I object to any Conunereial Development on Golden Cate Parkway. The Golden Gale Master Plan, as it currently stands, should he adhered to with No Amendments approved. 'There arc more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed:S'' �/X -G.'Z/ l' l Date: S SLR M..._)! s. Michele Md"'PA'", pf plaundi C4M►ICIMUSiVIO Planning Department 2800 North Horsesboe Drive Plum register my/our objection to PlanamS Commission Approval of say change to Policy 5,23 of Golden Gate Mawr Plan that would allow new commercial use along G31den Goo Parkway between Livingston Road and Sam Barbara Boulevard. Ilie specific project(s) objected to are checked Wow: Of Townsend Of David lAwrewe Cater 4f Colonnade Sincerely, Name �D r-O, ') -- Ak r, A-te_ r c3 1O e C- S, Address -) Y' 5 s 9 -" +-- 3A pdneipw PbMer Compreh"ve Plowing Department ZWO NW* Horsed= Drhm Naples FL34104. Please register my/our objection to PUMOPS Comm"on Approval of any change 10 Policy 5.2.3 of'GoWea Gate Master Plot that WOUW Allow new COMMWCW use along Golden Gate Parkway between Uvingnotk Road and Sants, Berbera Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: 0 Townsaid 411 David Ljwmace Center 0 Colonnade S* Name , Mdress '3.1? Feb 13 07 02:02p Bill Kendall Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning & Development 2800 North Horseshore Drive Naples, Florida 34104 FAX #: 239- 213 -2946 Dear Ms. Mosca: 239- 732 -5752 p.1 Please register our objection to the Planning Commission Approval of any changes to Policy 5.2.3 of The Golden Gate Master Plan, that would allow any new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific projects we are oppossed to are listed below: Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonnade Sincerely, William C. Kendall 2891 68th Street SW. Naples, Florida 34105 rt Donna M. Kendall 2891 68th Street SW. Naples, Florida 34105 L_ Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The sgecific project(s) objected to are checked below: {( Townsend V/ David Lawrence Center IV/Colonnade Sincerely, Name l/ Address 25 / / �j 02/14/2007 19:28 3169457620 HILTON ICT AIRPORT Z3 4e Ms. chele Pr Miincipal Plannef COTOPMhensive Planning Department 2890 North Horseshoe Drive NAPle8FL341'04-, Please register myloupp.bjection to Planning Commission Approval Of any change to Policy 5.23 of Golden Gate Mager Plan that Would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The TwIfic Project(s) objected to are checked below: XTownsend David Lawrence Carter Colonnade Sincerely, Name Address A�4 S A/ ILK 7W6 PLGE 01/01 February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 -403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend X David Lawrence Center X Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: +) 4 L'1 ) i`: i kV^ Date: - - 01 February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca@ Colli ergov. net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: KTownsend & David Lawrence Center XColonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, jr Signed- Date: <'- Li Y A, Ms Michele V6§bk1Ar.- Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Privo, NaplesFL34 Please register my/our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would &How new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: W/Townsend 6'/David Lawrence Center Qr�Colonnade Sincerely, Name - `± U- C Address P 50 6 U I—/I �) �, 0 '24 1 (36 Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: cY /spTownsend O� David Lawrence Center lor/ Colonnade Sincerely, Name `,n/ A Y tJ F M A A N S 2,25o (, (. , k S-r S L,J Address I _ Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: 19 Townsend David Lawrence Center 9, Colonnade Sincerely, Name Address �'� ' MxlloS February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Plamring Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca@ Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. Thefspecific project(s) objected to are checked below: f� Townsend David Lawrence Center L'/Colonade I object to any Coimnercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: '/` ` -- Date: cd / /(" Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: 6 Townsend David Lawrence Center _ W Colonnade Sincerely, Name Address 7� ✓% f [� <' LI- Ms. Michele M65c8 •AJCP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL34104> Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: • Townsend • David Lawrence Center • Colonnade Sincerely, Name Address 5q/0s February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 -403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.23 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: { Townsend w - r� David Lawrence Center _ 'Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway, The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: LUCIA; GINA M. 2700 70T" ST SV1% Naples, Florida 34105 Date: ) f Feb 15 07 05:02a Wyndernere Country Club 239-263-2748 t MS. Michele lV6§cai.AtCP Prin,"I DI anner Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL341'04,': Please register my our bjcctiOn to Planning Commission Approval of any change to our I Policy 5.2.3 of Go6)nC ate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: �Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonnade Sincerely, Name. Z—L�71- �; Address P.1 02/16/2007 16:45 2394036134 MONTY February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept, 2300 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Pax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosce@Colliergov.net PA3E 01 Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.23 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: 1� Townsend ;David Lawrence Center �Q Colonade object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered support to with No Amendments approved. There are and Radio Roads to suppo more than enough commercial h projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara rt this community. Sincerely, Signed: fi�� L 6-- fitAiur� Date: February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext.2466 Fwc 239 - 213 -2946 F-mail: Michele Mosca@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: -I Townsend David Lawrence Center v Colonade I object to any COmmereial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: Z d Z l99.0£t+ 6ZZ Date: a, I t! • L 11188 dtZ :O LO OZ qe3 February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Coimnission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center jZColonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the Following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: Date:-- �, Lc ,� `�L 02/14/2007 09:53 2393944109 ISLAND TITL PAGE 01/01 Z 5 ---PUB. mich&. jp pfin*W V 2800 NWO Horseshoe DMe Naples Please rq0stOr JMYIOW objection to PWming c Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Omm"Won Approval Master Plan the WOUM allow of any ch�e to 'Doldm Gate Parkway between Lmqp.,, Rod new commercial use along and Senor Barbara Boulevard. j "m V*Oifil, project(S) objected to are Checked below: W-"�TOwnsend "avid Lawrence cater �" Colonnade Sincerely, Ms. Michele U&.W-iA Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL34 tv Please register my/our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5,2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Ilk Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonnade Sincerely, Name Address (a ',2 C-) 0 -3 I Y,O-� VLe -J) 3 ce> tAs aoc-c- oz-tX ex -1-7.' -7 S- wx- a-,Ie' 0&44e"-4 I-b A/ t -Z404f--C,� -eke n14" ''Z/ �� CtSl- �� February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239- 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Co Ili ergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: v Townsend ✓David Lawrence Center ✓ Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this conntnunity. Sincerely, Signed: RODKEY, DAVID L =& CYNTHIA S 3221 68TH ST SW Naples, Florida 34105 Date: L. )k2' C_ ( Z Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: `Q Townsend \\ David Lawrence Center `O Colonnade Sincerely, Name Sz�a'. ifioP a/� 7-ld � Sharon Lambert Jay Rogers 3170 641" St., SW Naples, FL 34105 3y/OJ 1= February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Ii Townsend V David Lawrence Center d Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: Date: fl Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: O Townsend • David Lawrence Center 0 Colonnade Sincerely, Name Address C--n p , a 0 6? --st s -w - 3y /o�. 'dam) —> WHAT IS GOING TO BE BUILT ON THE CORNER OF YOUR STREET GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY? February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept, 2 800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We strongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend Y David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: l �i� ,nom< t j Date: i o ') h . 3 Yio j February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 - 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Far: 239 - 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new conunercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend X ''David Lawrence Center -Yv i Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough cornmercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community, Sincerely, fI Signed: f f`,° • Date: SCHUCH, MATTHEW F 2700 70TH ST SW Naples, Florida 34105 ty. J� FROM : FRX NO. :2396434591 Mar. 01 2007 05:02RM P1 February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Moses, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 -403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 - 213 -2946 },mail: Michele Mosca@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.23 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any ebanges that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard, The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: � -ld\ ©V_ -V Date: oC p /Q % February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 -403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E-mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new coimnercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific projeet(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center _h Colonade 1 object to any Cormnercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: 2 74.�4 �i Date: February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosea, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239- 213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @,Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: r✓Townsend ✓ David Lawrence Center ✓ Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this connnunity. Sincerely, Signed Yt- it Date: C% j��J707r%J' /�APt c s� 02-15-1900 03:17PM A. MEMO mu, Ap", PriucilW Planner NA Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL34f64 Please register my/uur objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked Wow: Townsend Ok David Lawrence Center #, Colonnade Sincerely, Name. Address �a �\V S -3 q \ (D S P.01 TOTAL 0.01 Ms. Michele M6§ck,;AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples FL34104 Please register my/our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: 0-11�Townsend f�David Lawrence Center Colonnade Sincerely, Name Address ' - . J-e Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonnade Sincerely, Name 17 SQL s - Address ���s IoCL� yr. February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 -403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca a.Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new connnereial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: I,/ TTo"wnsend Z/David Lawrence Center �C lonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: Date: Z`= 2„z� February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr, Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 -403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele MoscaCColliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: ti Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Cotmnercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, TEACH TR, CAROLYN H 2550 70TH ST SW Naples, Florida 34105 Signed: ":t'G' / /'L� Date: L Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonnade Sincerely, Name ._, C' Address 30 30 +-h 5tT-C e-L SW T L , 3q / os We- C) LV),A '13- acre h a6 be 10 &:s 6yv to `j th 5 e e Z� w o." n( w-e c 0 L,kJ�J u tz e In �c�cS Eu>o ac�ol£}i rta� NO 1/USr Ct'c -}-hre e �V��ecis f c>v i ltiesP �a � o � . �11y -ose bc- u- Ida6l� I cis C re vt c- ci i lt�n- our N v1, p cUt 3 30 (o44 w . February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planter Comprehensive Planning Dept, 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34I04 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca 'Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new coimnereial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Z Signed: Date: Z 7% c,' — c' 1 ,i Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: 11J 6 /David Lawrence Center 1B Colonnade Sincerely, Name J� � �--�- _�__ / , i�/LCL�'.g -. `°'�2 �rrti1 i � �v e 3 y °-1 I & S- rrf fir- S w Address �� / , �t 3 � u 1 r Ms. Michele Misses A1C1? Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe ]hive Naples PL.34104 Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.13 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below- J9 Townsend /\ David Lawrence Center Colonnade Sincerely, vorlx -- Name � / • 't'1 U � V A • �OJ1 +� W O U W Address )[;,� 1 ( IPCr 02/18/2007 09:02 941- 594 -5532 TOP BRASS METALCRAFT PAG-_ 01 February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, A1CP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net 3i Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. �Ve�-D The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: (y l l ZTownsend ✓ DDavid Lawrence Center y Colonade 1 object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara. and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Signed: =�•t� wt C �� [t Date: 2 ° / 9 0 Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) bjected are checked below: Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonnade Sincerel , Nam Addr rn FavTe Attn. Ms. Mosca, AICP FROM: James W. Walker Cindy D. Walker Property owners on 70th Street Southwest ( #3160) We as property owners off Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston and Santa Barbara Blvd. would like to express our opinion of Policy 5.2.3 on allowing changes of residential zoning to commercial zoning. WE STRONGLY OBJECT to any changes along this stretch of Golden Gate Parkway. Our concerns are as follows, (1) More businesses along this stretch would increase traffic. With the 75 interchange due to open in early March, this will be bringing enough traffic as is. (2) Collier County Schoo) runs 3 buses in the morning and 3 buses in the afternoon that stops at each street along the Parkway (701h 68th 66th etc). Cars run past these buses on a daily basis while they are stopped picking up children. With the interchange opening, there will be more larger trucks, eighteen wheelers etc. exiting and using Golden Gate Parkway as their point of entrance to Naples. It's only a matter of time before a major accident occurs with a bus on this stretch. (3) This section is our neighborhood, please leave it alone and not allow any more growth to be put along this stretch. Thank you your attention to this and keep in mind that families live in this section. James & Cindy Walker Atm. Ms. Mosca, AICP FROM: James W. Walker Cindy D. Walker Property owners on 701h Street Southwest ( #3160) We as property owners off Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston and Santa Barbara Blvd. would like to express our opinion of Policy 5.2.3 on allowing changes of residential zoning to commercial zoning. WE STRONGLY OBJECT to any changes along this stretch of Golden Gate Parkway. Our concerns are as follows, (1) More businesses along this stretch would increase traffic. With the 75 interchange due to open in early March, this will be bringing enough traffic as is. (2) Collier County Schoo4runs 3 buses in the morning and 3 buses in the afternoon that stops at each street along the Parkway (70th 68th 66th etc). Cars run past these buses on a daily basis while they are stopped picking up children. With the interchange opening, there will be more larger trucks, eighteen wheelers etc. exiting and using Golden Gate Parkway as their point of entrance to Naples. It's only a matter of time before a major accident occurs with a bus on this stretch. (3) This section is our neighborhood, please leave it alone and not allow any more growth to be put along this stretch. Thank you your attention to this and keep in mind that families live in this section. James & Cindy Walker Z February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2400 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239 -403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 239 -213 -2946 E -mail: Michele Mosea@Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: /Townsend f/David Lawrence Center t/Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, WALTBILLIG, PETER JOSEPH 2901 70TH ST SW Naples, Florida 34105 'i Signed: Date: February 14, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Dept. 2800 North Horseshoe Dr. Naples, FL 34104 Phone: 239- 403 -2400 ext. 2466 Fax: 219-213-2946 E -mail: Michele Mosca @Colliergov.net Please register my objection to the following projects with the Planning Commission. We stongly want the existing Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan to remain in effect. We are against any changes that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: V Townsend David Lawrence Center Colonade I object to any Commercial Development on Golden Gate Parkway. The Golden Gate Master Plan, as it currently stands, should be adhered to with No Amendments approved. There are more than enough commercial projects currently being developed on Pine Ridge, Santa Barbara and Radio Roads to support this community. Sincerely, Sighed: f _ 7 / f � Date: Ve, S-j Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: )K Townsend David Lawrence Center xColonnade Sincerely, Name Address tti --54Y6 G& S/ S W A %Jln X05 Page 1 of 2 MoscaMichele From: George Bond [coach0072002 @yahoo.com] Sent: Sunday, February 11, 2007 6:50 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Objection to Any Change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Ms. Michele Moscha, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Dear Ms. Mosca: Recently, there was a presentation to the Golden Gate community of a proposal for a project at the northeast intersection of Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway. The proposal is for the construction of a 40,000 sq. ft. office building and surrounding parking area. This project is to be built on 5 acres that is currently zoned residential. As you know, this project will require that Collier County allow the amendment of the Golden Gate Corridor to allow commercial development along this corridor. Several years ago, at the inception of the project to widen Golden Gate Parkway and construct the interstate exchange in the area, policy was approved by the Collier County Board of Commissioners to alleviate local residents' fears that Golden Gate Parkway would become a commercial corridor similar to that on Pine Ridge Road at its intersection with I -75. Policy 5.2.3 addresses and alleviates these fears. In sum, no new commercial uses shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the segments defined in the policy. We are adamantly opposed to any changes in the aforementioned policy. We have been residents of Collier County since August of 1975. We have lived at our current residence since September of 1986. As you may know, in recent years, we have endured years of construction and now utilization of the six lane Livingston Road which parallels, at close proximity, the back of our Estates home. The noise and debris alone at times are unbearable. We and our neighbors to the south were not worthy of a berm or suitable wall. We were bought off, I suppose. To make matters worse, Livingston Road has become a race track. In addition, we have recently lost an entrance to 70th Street SW from Golden Gate Parkway traveling east, forcing us to make a dangerous U - turn into incoming traffic, soon to be made worse by the opening of the new Golden Gate interchange. Now, the idea of losing more of the integrity of our neighborhood to commercial development is unfathomable and unacceptable to us. In this case, the disciples of profit must not prevail and be permitted to continue to destroy a once pristine community of estate homes and, in effect, to transform it into a commercial zone of office buildings, restaurants, fast foods, convenience stores, and gas stations. Golden Gate Parkway between Airport Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard was never a Pine Ridge Road. Nor should it be permitted to become such. This corridor must remain residential as defined in policy 5.2.3. 2/26/2007 Page 2 of 2 For this reason, we are requesting that you: Please register our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are: 1. Townsend 2. David Lawrence Center 3. Colonnade Sincerely, George T. Bond, III Fredricka F. Bond 2745 70th Street SW Naples, Florida 34105 239.262.2154 Home 239.298.0063 George's Cell 239.595.0881 Fredricka's Cell Never Miss an Email Stay connected with Yahoo! Mail on your mobile. Get started! 2/26/2007 Thomas A. Collins, II 2890 66`h Street, SW Naples, Florida 34105 February 16, 2007 Ms. Michele Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Comprehensive Planning Department Collier County Government 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 Re: GMP Amendment CO- 2005 -04 Townsend Livingston Road Commercial Subdistrict Dear Ms. Mosca: I submit this letter in opposition to the above referenced comprehensive plan amendment and request that it be included in the materials provided to the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners, and that it be included as part of the official record for all hearings on the above referenced comprehensive plan amendment. My wife, Donna, and I are longtime residents of the Estates zoned area between Livingston Road and I -75. We live in a unique neighborhood. The zoning has always prohibited commercial development, except limited conditional uses. The Master Plan has always provided for the zoning to remain residential. The area is like a forest. The lots are large and the streets have little traffic. It is not unusual to see residents riding horses through the neighborhood. The residents enjoy the rural character of the neighborhood. That's why they live here. Since the announcement many years ago that a new intersection was being planned at Golden Gate Parkway and I -75, our residents have been concerned that the development of the interchange might lead to a proliferation of commercial and conditional uses. Our residents have consistently made our concerns known to local government leaders, and the response has consistently been that the interchange would be constructed because the community needs it, but that impacts on the surrounding residential neighborhood would be minimized and the neighborhood would be protected from commercial development, recognizing that interchanges often lead to such development. February 16, 2007 Page 2 The interchange is now complete and developers, such as the applicant, have acquired or are actively acquiring properties along the Parkway for commercial development, despite the fact the area has a residential zoning designation. Our residents now ponder whether local government leaders will respect the concerns of our residents and the community and continue to maintain the policy of prohibiting commercial development in our neighborhood. I believe a review of past proceedings and events would be helpful to Collier County Government leaders in making their decision. In 2000, when various public meetings were occurring with respect to the proposed interchange, I and other residents met directly with Commissioners Constantine, Norris, Berry and Carter and each unequivocally expressed their desire and commitment that the area around the proposed interchange remain residential. I recall well Commissioner Constantine's remark to me that commuters could "go somewhere else for their gas." At the same time, I and other concerned residents had considerable contact with Mr. Ed Kant, the County's acting Transportation Services Director, who was representing the County in various public meetings. In a letter to me dated April 13, 2000, copy enclosed, Mr. Kant stated "the area surrounding the new interchange is not slated to be developed commercially as have the other interchanges It is my understanding that the Board of County Commissioners is desirous of keeping the green space in this location and the semi -rural character of the neighborhood This interchange will be one of the major gateways into the Collier County urban area I believe it is the Board's intent that residents and visitors alike should see our best foot forward." I participated in a neighborhood group headed by Mr. Bob Stone and Mr. Herbert Cambridge. The group had concerns about the design of the interchange. Mr. Stone lost his house and property to accommodate a ramp for the interchange. Mr. Cambridge lost part of his frontage. I believe there were takings on 15 or more properties, including 5 homes. At that time, Commissioner Henning showed a great deal of interest in the group's concerns. In correspondence to Mr. Stone, Commissioner Henning stated "I am committed not to re -zone at the new interchange." I sincerely hope Commissioner Henning will maintain that commitment against the oncoming flood of development applications. I participated as a member of the County's Ad Hoc Committee established to provide input and guidance concerning the esthetic appearance of the Golden Gate Parkway Corridor and to coordinate with FDOT as it developed its plan for the interchange. The Committee gave particular attention to noise, lighting and buffering issues with the goal of minimizing impacts, recognizing the residential nature of the area and the close proximity of homes. I have been pleased of late to see the results of those efforts. I believe the County and FDOT have done a good job with the esthetic February 16, 2007 Page 3 appearance of the Golden Gate Parkway Corridor and that this helps significantly to preserve the appeal of homes near the Parkway for residential use. Some property owners along the Parkway, recognizing the value of their homes as residences, have made sizable recent investments in buffering and remodeling their homes. Others are convinced their property will be rezoned commercial and are therefore holding back on improving their property. A clear signal from County leaders that the area will remain residential would be very helpful to the health and viability of the neighborhood. In February, 2003, the County's Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Committee considered appropriate changes to the Golden Gate Master Plan with respect to Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. At that time, and today, the Master Plan prohibited commercial uses in Estates zoned areas. Specifically, the Committee was considering how to deal with conditional uses. A petition from more than 60 neighborhood residents was presented to the Committee. A copy of the petition is enclosed. The petition expressed the residents' desire to "avoid and restrict the growth of non - residential development within the interchange area ... by entirely prohibiting any new or expanded conditional uses, except essential services." In preparation for the February, 2003, meeting of the Committee, County Staff prepared and submitted a memorandum of background information. A copy of the memorandum is enclosed. The memorandum states, in part, "Since the Florida Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Commission approved the Golden Gate Parkway /1 -75 Interchange, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners has stated its intention not to allow commercial development in the vicinity of the planned highway interchange. However the history of interchanges along I -75 suggests that most interchanges are dominated by commercial uses (although the businesses therein may or may not be successful)." The memorandum further quoted language from the "Toward Better Places, the Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida," which contains the following recommendation concerning the Golden Gate Parkway /I -75 interchange: "Develop plans for the land surrounding the future interchame_of I -75 and Golden Gate Parkway so that the interchange can provide a dramatic entry into Naples and Golden Gate instead of simply being a location for conventional interstate commercial uses." I and other concerned residents attended the meeting of the Restudy Committee and stated our desire that the area remain residential and that the County halt the proliferation of conditional uses. I recall there was no opposition to this. At that meeting the Restudy Committee considered and unanimously endorsed the staff's proposal. The Restudy Committee's changes to the Master Plan were subsequently approved with little modification by the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners. As a result of the amendment process, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan contains the following policy statement as Policy 5.2.3 : February 16, 2007 Page 4 "Recognizing the existing residential nature of the land uses surrounding the planning I -75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses of the Conditional Uses Subsection of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no further commercial zoning for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard No new commercial uses shall be permitted on properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above - defined segment This policy shall not apply to that exiting portion of the Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, which is located at the northwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard." Also, as a result of the amendment process, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan contains the following requirement regarding conditional uses: "Recognizing the existing residential nature of the land uses surrounding the planned I -75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway there shall be no further conditional uses for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway, between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard Further no properties abutting streets accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above - defined segment shall be approved for conditional uses." It is important to note that the area was already zoned Estates, which already prohibited commercial use, and the Master Plan already had a residential designation for the area. The Restudy Committee, Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners could not propose or vote to make the area any more residential or any less commercial than it already was, but they obviously still wanted to do all they could, recognizing the impact of the interchange and the history of interchanges along I -75 being commercialized, to guide and empower future local government leaders and area residents to resist future efforts to commercialize the Golden Gate Parkway corridor. Policy 5.2.3 is a strong, honorable and well considered policy that the County, after due consideration and extensive process, adopted to protect our neighborhood and its residents from the potential future commercialization of the Parkway. Policy 5.2.3 was also adopted in the best interests of the citizens of Collier County, because the preservation of the rural, residential character of our neighborhood promotes that interest. Congestion around the interchange resulting from commercialization does not promote that interest. It would be extremely disappointing to see this Policy ignored or abrogated. Policy 5.2.3 was adopted in anticipation of the interchange and the widening of the Parkway. There are no new or unanticipated circumstances that would support whittling away at this Policy by making multiple exceptions for minor commercial subdistricts. February 16, 2007 Page 5 Recently, a neighborhood information meeting was held where representatives of the applicants had the opportunity to present their plan and hear comments from the affected neighbors. The meeting was well attended and I am sure the record of the meeting will show that the attendees were overwhelmingly against the applicants' proposal. A couple of advocates in favor of commercialization spoke and said that commercialization was inevitable and the residents may as well accept that it is going to happen. I expect they were not aware of Policy 5.2.3 and the County's expressed commitment to prevent such commercialization. I note with appreciation that Mr. Ed Kant appeared at that meeting and expressed his concerns. His comment was that we, the concerned neighbors, should recognize that the proposed development at the corner of Livingston Road and Golden Gate Parkway and the already approved development at the corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway should be regarded as two bookends, and that if the applicants' proposal is approved, we should consider the possibility that all of the area between these two developments will eventually be filled in with commercial development. I commend Mr. Kant for his concern and the fact that he made the effort to attend this meeting even though he does not live in the area and is not directly affected. Mr. Kant is intimately familiar with the history of the interchange and, I believe, is interested in seeing that promises made to our residents when the interchange was proposed are kept. I believe it is noteworthy that the applicants purchased their property, presumably for residential purposes since it was zoned that way, in 2003 when it was certain that the interchange would be constructed and the Livingston Road and I -75 intersection would be, if it wasn't already, a busy traffic area. It is also noteworthy that the provisions of the Golden Gate Master Plan which the applicants seek to amend were all approved through public process subsequent to such purchase. I attended most, if not all, of the public hearings concerning the adoption of the new Master Plan. I do not recall the applicants or their representatives presenting any public comment. In fact, I recall there was little, if any, public opposition to the relevant provisions of the new Master Plan, and I believe the amendments were completely and unanimously supported by County decision makers. My wife and I and our neighbors feel that the applicants' proposal is the proverbial camel's nose under the tent. If the applicant is successful in amending the Master Plan as proposed, there will be, as Mr. Kant predicts, many similar future applications for commercial sub - districts along the Parkway and add on amendments to Policy 5.2.3. If the future land use designation and such a strong and recent statement of policy as Policy 5.2.3 is disregarded, one would have to question the purpose of having a Master Plan for Golden Gate Estates, and why such effort went into creating one. Will every five (5) acre nook and cranny near a major roadway or intersection in Golden Gate Estates ultimately be designated a specific commercial sub - district? February 16, 2007 Page 6 It is my hope that Collier County leaders will not yield to efforts to commercialize the Parkway and our neighborhood and will act decisively against the applicants' petition so as to discourage such efforts and preserve the rural residential character of our neighborhood and the extraordinary character of Collier County. Very truly yours, Thomas A. Collins, II e -mail: tcollins @swflalaw.com TAC /js Enc. PAClients Transactions \Collins, Tom 3399 \Golden Gate Parkway\2 -15 -07 Ur. to Mosca.doc COLLIER COUNTY GOVERNMENT TRANSPORTATION SERVICES DEPARTMENT April 13, 2000 Mr. Thomas A. Collins, II 2890 66"' Street SW Naples, FL 34105 Re: Public Workshop Meeting. April 20, 2000 I -75 /Golden Gate Parkway Interchange Dear Mr. Collins: 3301 E. TAMIAMI TRIAL. NAPLES, FL 34112 (941) 774 -8494 FAX: (941) 774 -5375 A CERTIFIED BLUE CHIP COMMUNITY Thank you for your letter dated April 11, 2000. In your letter you invited me to attend the subject meeting. Although I have a prior commitment for that evening, it does not begin until about 7:30. Therefore, I am pleased to report that I plan to attend for at least a short time. I also acknowledge being one of those suggesting the use of "backage" roads as access rather than close up "frontage" roads. In my letter to Mr. Williams of FDOT, which you enclosed with your neighborhood invitation, I set forth my reasoning; however. I am still open to neighborhood concerns and I look forward to an interesting and stimulating dialogue. Although not explicit in the letter mentioned above, based on my reading of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, the area surrounding the new interchange is not slated to be developed commercially as have the other interchanges. It is my understanding that the Board of County Comm ssioners is desirous of keeping the green space in this location and the semi -rural character of the neighborhood. This interchange will be one of the major gateways into the Collier County urban area. I believe it is the Board's intent that residents and visitors alike should see our best foot forward. r look forward to meeting you next Thursday. Very truly yours, Edward J. MirfVP.E. Transportation Services Director cc: Thomas W. 011iff, County Manager (w /copy of Collins correspondence) Edward N. Finn, Public Works Administrator (w /copy of Collins correspondence) Dale A. Bathon, P.E., Traffic Operations Manager (w /copy of Collins correspondence) Gavin Jones, P.E., Transportation Planning Manager (w /copy of Collins correspondence) File: GGP /I -75 Interchange I -75 INTERCHANGE AT GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY AND SURROUNDING AREA February 26, 2003 Background: Since the Florida Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Commission approved the Golden Gate Parkway /I -75 Interchange, the Collier County Board of County Commissioners has stated its intention not to allow commercial development in the vicinity of the planned highway interchange. However, the history of interchanges along I -75 suggests that most interchanges are dominated by commercial land uses (although the businesses therein may or may not be successful). Therefore, the purpose of this report is to: 1) Determine the types of land uses that are acceptable to the residents of the area surrounding the planned interchange; and 2) Include language supporting such uses within the amended Golden Gate Area Master Plan. — The Community Character Plan: "Toward Better Places, The Community Character Plan For Collier County, Florida," contains the following recommendation concerning the Golden Gate Parkway /I -75 Interchange: "Develop a plan for the land surrounding the future interchange of I -75 and Golden Gate Parkway so that the interchange can provide a dramatic entry into Naples and Golden Gate instead of simply being a location for conventional interstate commercial uses." There are two parts of this recommendation. At the Restudy Committee meeting, The Golden Gate/ I -75 Ad Hoc Beautification Committee will make a presentation discussing the proposed landscaping for the interchange itself. The Beautification Committee's work represents the "dramatic entry" portion of the Community Character Plan's recommendation. However, the second part of the recommendation is to prevent the land surrounding the interchange from becoming "a location for conventional interstate commercial uses." It follows then that such uses would not be allowed in the interchange area, and this is the position officially taken by the Board of County Commissioners. Staff is proposing to address this position through a new policy statement. This policy would be amended to the GGAMP as Policy 1.4.2, and would read as follows: "Recognizing the existing residential nature of the land uses surrounding the planned I -75 interchange at Golden Gate Parkway, as well as the restrictions on conditional uses contained within the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan, there shall be no commercial re- zoning for properties abutting Golden Gate Parkway, between 66th Street, SW and 60th Street, SW. Further, no properties abutting streets 1 accessing Golden Gate Parkway within the above - defined segment shall be allowed to rezone for commercial uses." A large aerial photograph, depicting the subject area will be viewable at the Restudy Committee meeting. Policy Implications: Currently, the provisions of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan would not allow commercial uses along the subject portion of Golden Gate Boulevard, nor along its tributary network of streets. It is possible for a property owner or developer to attempt to amend the GGAMP to allow commercial uses (subject to a subsequent rezone petition). There are currently no commercially zoned properties within the subject area. There are, however, commercial uses within two blocks west of 66th Street, SW. These include a proposed commercial gymnasium and a meeting hall for hire (the bingo parlor). Traditionally, residents along Golden Gate Parkway (in the Estates) have been resistant to commercial amendments or rezones and the Board of County Commissioners has generally bowed to their (the residents') wishes. However, with the interchange coming to the area, the pressure on Board members to allow commercial uses within the interchange area will increase. The proposed policy would then provide a declaration of both the County Commission's and the community's intent not to allow commercial in the interchange area. Having such a policy statement as part of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan may make it more difficult for a future Board of County Commissioners to approve commercial land use amendments or rezones in the subject area. Staff Recommendation: The Restudy Committee should recommend that the above policy statement be included in the Second Phase Restudy Amendments to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. 2 TO: The Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee (the "Committee") and the Collier County Commission (the "Commission "). FROM: Residents of the Estates Designation Area near the Golden Gate Parkway and I -75 interchange (the "Interchange Area "). The Committee has decided to study possible changes to the Golden Gate Master Plan relative to the Estates designation area in the Interchange Area. We hereby express to the Committee our desire to avoid and restrict the growth of non - residential development within the Interchange Area. Presently there is little opportunity for Conditional Uses to be approved within the Interchange Area. This is because the Master Plan currently requires that: "Conditional uses (except essential services) shall not be permitted: On Golden Gate Parkway within the Estates Designation Area west of Santa Barbara Boulevard, unless the parcel is directly bounded by conditional uses on two (2) or more side yards with no intervening rights -of -ways or waterways." There are few, if any, circumstances where this requirement can presently be met. We would like the Committee and Commission to either keep the Master Plan the way it presently is, or make it more restrictive - perhaps by entirely prohibiting any new or expanded Conditional Uses, except essential services. Your kind consideration of this matter is appreciated. SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS J r0 �s SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS C- 6( 't P4- -S)- -S q/ ltl� TO: The Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee (the "Committee ") and the Collier County Commission (the "Commission "). FROM: Residents of the Estates Designation Area near the Golden Gate Parkway and I -75 interchange (the "Interchange Area "). The Committee has decided to study possible changes to the Golden Gate Master Plan relative to the Estates designation area in the Interchange Area. We hereby express to the Committee our desire to avoid and restrict the growth of non - residential development within the Interchange Area. Presently there is little opportunity for Conditional Uses to be approved within the Interchange Area. This is because the Master Plan currently requires that: "Conditional uses (except essential services) shall not be permitted: On Golden Gate Parkway within the Estates Designation Area west of Santa Barbara Boulevard, unless the parcel is directly bounded by conditional uses on two (2) or more side yards with no intervening rights -of -ways or waterways." There are few, if any, circumstances where this requirement can presently be met. We would like the Committee and Commission to either keep the Master Plan the way it presently is, or make it more restrictive - perhaps by entirely prohibiting any new or expanded Conditional Uses, except essential services. Your kind consideration of this matter is appreciated. IGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS NoY�_6 a -�-[k 1, ��CYOC&?Cy -k4 y. C m Ir R� RA 7� 3ZZC) ,,- 0c °1 s LF\rk. 62,0, -7a ✓'i _ -s- , �rST -7, Sz S. lti/ SIGNATURE PRINT NAME )-o ADDRESS m 'gD C-i- TO: The Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee (the "Committee ") and the Collier County Commission (the "Commission "). FROM: Residents of the Estates Designation Area near the Golden Gate Parkway and I -75 interchange (the "Interchange Area "). The Committee has decided to study possible changes to the Golden Gate Master Plan relative to the Estates designation area in the Interchange Area. We hereby express to the Committee our desire to avoid and restrict the growth of non - residential development within the Interchange Area. Presently there is little opportunity for Conditional Uses to be approved within the Interchange Area. This is because the Master Plan currently requires that: "Conditional uses (except essential services) shall not be permitted: On Golden Gate Parkway within the Estates Designation Area west of Santa Barbara Boulevard, unless the parcel is directly bounded by conditional uses on two (2) or more side yards with no intervening rights -of -ways or waterways." There are few, if any, circumstances where this requirement can presently be met. We would like the Committee and Commission to either keep the Master Plan the way it presently is, or make it more restrictive - perhaps by entirely prohibiting any new or expanded Conditional Uses, except essential services. Your kind consideration of this matter is appreciated. SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS GJ 5Nf�,c Ie�i i GJ 5Nf�,c Ie�i PRINT NAME %S ADDRESS /S�rren 3,-,:136 (Ole ry,��SiJ /mss 4 3q � 341 m 3 yji �- TO: The Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee (the "Committee ") and the Collier County Commission (the "Commission "). FROM: Residents of the Estates Designation Area near the Golden Gate Parkway and I -75 interchange (the "Interchange Area "). The Committee has decided to study possible changes to the Golden Gate Master Plan relative to the Estates designation area in the Interchange Area. We hereby express to the Committee our desire to avoid and restrict the growth of non - residential development within the Interchange Area. Presently there is little opportunity for Conditional Uses to be approved within the Interchange Area. This is because the Master Plan currently requires that: "Conditional uses (except essential services) shall not be permitted: On Golden Gate Parkway within the Estates Designation Area west of Santa Barbara Boulevard, unless the parcel is directly bounded by conditional uses on two (2) or more side yards with no intervening rights -of -ways or waterways." There are few, if any, circumstances where this requirement can presently be met. We would like the Committee and Commission to either keep the Master Plan the way it presently is, or make it more restrictive - perhaps by entirely prohibiting any new or expanded Conditional Uses, except essential services. Your kind consideration of this matter is appreciated. (RE PRINT NAME ADDRESS V Jo 0 3 a so �f4 d 1, 4 Ij w,4 k a rA-�- 3 Z �Y� s S, w 1 417, Sll- 5 L sL.s� I --�nk MW TO: The Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee (the "Committee") and the Collier County Commission (the "Commission "). FROM: Residents of the Estates Designation Area near the Golden Gate Parkway and I -75 interchange (the "Interchange Area "). The Committee has decided to study possible changes to the Golden Gate Master Plan relative to the Estates designation area in the Interchange Area. We hereby express to the Committee our desire to avoid and restrict the growth of non - residential development within the Interchange Area. Presently there is little opportunity for Conditional Uses to be approved within the Interchange Area. This is because the Master Plan currently requires that: "Conditional uses (except essential services) shall not be permitted: On Golden Gate Parkway within the Estates Designation Area west of Santa Barbara Boulevard, unless the parcel is directly bounded by conditional uses on two (2) or more side yards with no intervening rights -of -ways or waterways." There are few, if any, circumstances where this requirement can presently be met. We would like the Committee and Commission to either keep the Master Plan the way it presently is, or make it more restrictive - perhaps by entirely prohibiting any new or expanded Conditional Uses, except essential services. Your kind consideration of this matter is appreciated. IGNATTRRE *L� U PRINT NAME ADDRESS �NL— 9 /. / c,✓ /-,rlciz"� -CGV- /I GL/i .�: S. TO: The Golden Gate Master Plan Restudy Committee (the "Committee") and the Collier County Commission (the "Commission "). FROM: Residents of the Estates Designation Area near the Golden Gate Parkway and I -75 interchange (the "Interchange Area "). The Committee has decided to study possible changes to the Golden Gate Master Plan relative to the Estates designation area in the Interchange Area. We hereby express to the Committee our desire to avoid and restrict the growth of non - residential development within the Interchange Area. Presently there is little opportunity for Conditional Uses to be approved within the Interchange Area. This is because the Master Plan currently requires that: "Conditional uses (except essential services) shall not be permitted: On Golden Gate Parkway within the Estates Designation Area west of Santa Barbara Boulevard, unless the parcel is directly bounded by conditional uses on two (2) or more side yards with no intervening rights -of -ways or waterways." There are few, if any, circumstances where this requirement can presently be met. We would like the Committee and Commission to either keep the Master Plan the way it presently is, or make it more restrictive - perhaps by entirely prohibiting any new or expanded Conditional Uses, except essential services. Your kind consideration of this matter is appreciated. SIGNATURE PRINT NAME ADDRESS u LL 1( Ck t ,go,04 %Ll 40q �11S- u a� /-T Page 1 of 1 MoscaMichele From: Bill Confoy [wconfoy @swfla.rr.com] Sent: Friday, February 02, 2007 7:38 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Livingston Rd. & GGP Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red As you know the Townsends have petitioned the County to convert their corner property from residential to Commercial. They envision a medical office bldg. I envision it a residence like those to the north & east. Who would be naive enough to not believe that the sole purpose in acquiring this property was to convert it to commercial in lieu of maintaining it as s residence? It was a gamble on their part & neither the planning commission nor the commissioners shd allow this to happen. The community made it quite clear two or so years ago that GGP,from Santa Barbara to Liv Rd, shd remain residential. GGP wiil have an exit on 1 -75 shortly & will become the major gateway to the city. That gateway shd be a street of nicely landscaped homes (ala Liv. rd) & not a series of commercial bldg's (like Pine Ridge) so as to reinforce the Naples image the County has fostered. I is obvious that if you let this thru,the rest of GGP will fall to the same fate as well as homes on Liv Rd to the north of Townsend's. A promise to the Community should remain just that! Bill Confoy wc_onfoy_ @swf!a. rr. com 2/26/2007 Page 1 of 1 MoscaMichele From: Libby Biehl [Libby @weberdesigngroup.com] Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 2:12 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Amendments to the Gold Gate Parkway Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Dear Ms. Mosca: I am very concerned about the information I have received in the mail recently regarding amendments to the Golden Gate Master Plan. I live very close to the new 1 -75 interchange and one of my major concerns before the project even started was the area around my residence becoming more commercial instead of residential. The project is not even completed and businesses are already gearing up to make changes. I understand the need to update and give Golden Gate City a face lift as it were, but those areas are already commercial in nature. I believe once the door is opened to commercial use amendments in and around the new exchange it will provide an opportunity for future arguments to only expand the commercial properties into more of the residential areas. This has a potential for lowing real estate values in our area. Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan Between Golden Gate parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Blvd. Townsend — Object David Lawrence — Object Colonnade — Object Thank you Mary Biehl 3205 60th Street SW Naples, Florida 34116 2/23/2007 Yage 1 of 1 MoscaMichele From: J.D. Loden, LUTC [d @jdlodenfinancial.comj Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 5:28 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Livingstion GG Parkway Amendment Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red I would like to formally register my objection to any change in the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. More specifically concerning the proposed amendment for the NORTHEAST corner of Golden Gate PKWY and Livingston. 1- Any amendment, or modified change would certainly create an opening for other "residential" property owners to do the same; 2- The area is a unique neighborhood of single family homes with acreage, much like the homes found North of Pine Ridge and Livingston. These properties include sensitive natural habit and foliage including Cypress Trees. Our neighborhood supports cover for Red Fox, Bobcats, and even a few gators on the various lakes. As you know commercialization would not stop. I don't believe the Colliers or the Sutton Families would allow such commercial development near their horse farms on Daniels or the vacinity. Thank you for your consideration. J.D. Loden, Lutc Past performance does not guarantee future results Comprehensive Business & Personal Financial Planning Services Securities offered through Investors Capital Corporation Member NASD /SIPC 230 Broadway, Lynnfield MA 01940 800 - 949 -1422. 201 8th St. South, Suite 306 Naples, FI 34102 239 -430 -0104 FAX 239 -430 -0105 WEBSITE www.ldlpdenfinancial.com 2/23/2007 From: Edward J. Kant fmailto:b- e.kant @comcast.net] Sent: Thursday, February 01, 2007 4:27 PM To: 'lindabedtelyon @colliergov.net' Subject: NIM Paul Schwartz of Colonnade Group - 2/1/07 Linda: Unfortunately, I have a conflict and will be unable to attend the subject NIM I have no financial interest in any property in that area and I do not represent any other individual or group except myself. I would like to record to reflect that I am opposed to this request for a GMP Amendment. I believe that the long -term intent of the framers of the Comp Plan was to preserve the Golden Gate Parkway Corridor (knowing that an interchange could be a real possibility at some point in time) from the rampant commercial growth seen along the other 1 -75 interchange approach corridors in Collier County (Immokalee Road, Pine Ridge Road, CR 951/SR 84). 1 have spoken against this type of change in the past and will continue to do so as I believe it is in the best interests of the County that this corridor remain free of additional commercial development due to the ultimate lack of roadway capacity that will result.. This area is currently zoned Estates and the Comp Plan indicates, I believe, a continued residential use. There are already a number of non - residential uses along the corridor and given Collier County's transportation network, especially in that area, I believe that adding the potential for increased traffic would not be a good public policy direction. Thank you for the opportunity to voice my opinion. Edward I Kant, P.E. 1910 Mission Drive Naples, FL 34109 239 - 598 -3123 b -e. kantCa2comcast. net Page 1 of 1 MoscaMichele From: DJ2790 @aol.com Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 12:49 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Changes to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red Ms. Mosca, As residents of Unit 29 on 68th ST SW, my wife and I are emailing you to object to any changes to the Policy 5.2.3 of the Golden Gate master plan that would allow commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Santa Barbara Boulevard and Livingston Road. I specifically object to the Colonnade project, the Townsend project and the David Lawrence Center. Please register our objection to any changes to this Policy 5.2.3 of the G G Master Plan. Thank You, Daniel W. and Saskia Jenkins 2 72 0 68th ST SW Naples, FL 34105 2/23/2007 Page 1 of l MoscaMichele From: Kevin Carmichael [kemacar @earthlink.net] Sent: Monday, February 12, 2007 10:46 AM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Golden Gate Comprenhensive Growth Management Plan - Opposition to Commercial Rezoning Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Red DEAR MS MOSCA: 1 AM A CONCERNED PROPERTY OWNER AND PARENT. AS A NAPLES RESIDENT FOR 7 YEARS, 1 HAVE SEEN GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY GO FROM A 4 LANE COUNTRY ROAD WITH NO TRAFFIC LIGHTS AND NO STREET LIGHTS, TO A 6 LANE MAIN ROAD WITH A 75 INTERCHANGE EXIT TWO BLOCKS FROM MY STREET. NEEDLESSTOSAYWEARE NOTHAPPY. THERE IS EXTENSIVE CONSTRUCTION GOING ON ALL AROUND US. GOOD EXAMPLES ARE DAVIS BLVD. AND 951 TOWARDS MARCO, WHERE EVERYTHING ON BOTH SIDES IS BEING TORNED DOWN TO ALLOW MORE SPACE FOR FURTHER DEVELOPMENT. NAPLES AS WE KNEW IT IS NO MORE. THE REASONS WE MOVE HERE FROM MIAMI'S DADE COUNTY ARE DISAPPEARING. WE DO NOT WANT OUR BACKYARD TO BECOME A CORRIDOR OF GAS STATIONS AND OFFICE BUILDINGS. WE WANT GOLDEN GATE PARKWAY FROM SANTA BARBARA TO L./V /NGSTON RD. TO REMAIN RES/DEAmAL. THIS HAS BECOME AN ALL TOO FREQUENT TOPIC OF DISCUSSION AT THE DINNER TABLE. MY THREE CHILDREN AGES 14, 9, AND 5, ARE BOTH SCARED AND CONCERNED ABOUT ALL THE CHANGES GOING ON. MY 9 YEAR OLD IS EVEN HAVING BAD DREAMS ABOUT ALL OF THIS AS I AM ALSO. PLEASE 1 BEG YOU TO DO EVERYTHING IN YOUR POWER TO STOP FURTHER DEVELOPMENT OF THE PARKWAY. MY CHILDREN THANK YOU IN ADVANCE. MARIA CARMICHAEL.(RESIDENT AND OWNER, 2810 66TH ST. SW) 2/26/2007 May 17 07 02:28p Richard E Stephenson II 2393542432 p1 Please register my /our objection to Planning Commission Approval of any change to Policy 5.2.3 of Golden Gate Master Plan that would allow new commercial use along Golden Gate Parkway between Livingston Road and Santa Barbara Boulevard. The specific project(s) objected to are checked below: e% Townsend David Lawrence Center 6 Colonnade Sincerely,} Name Address 3aa� s�r s,cv, /U le .4711 MoscaMichele From: SMPloski @aol.com Sent: Tuesday, March 27, 2007 8:07 PM To: MoscaMichele Subject: Zoning changes to Trinity Place Page 1 of 1 We are writing you regarding a proposed zoning change to two lots located at the entrance of Trinity Place. As property owners on this street we are very much against the zoning change and would like to keep our street as part of the rural fringe. We have been to one of the meetings only to have it postponed and can not afford to keep taking days off to attend these meetings. However that does not change our interest in the subject and hope that you will represent us and others against this zoning change. Thank you. Robert & Sally Ploski 11040 Trinity Place Naples, FL 34114 Tel. 239 - 774 -3440 AOL now offers free email to everyone. Find out more about what's free from AOL at AOL.com. 3/28/2007 ct r� pnmm N b,A ct3 ct O O 4=4 • r� -+ME) s "I N N .4 E N O � O � N � 640 O O N i u rold, O O N WILSON BOULEVARD and GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER EXPANSION CP- 2005 -2 GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PACKET PREPARED BY: MICHAEL R. FERNANDEZ, AICP PLANNING DEVELOPMENT INCORPORATED Development Consultants, Engineers, Planners and Landscape Architects 5133 Castello Drive, Suite 2, Naples, Florida, 34103 239 / 263 -6934 239 / 263 -6981 fax PDI MRF @ AOL.COM APRIL 2007 WILSON BOULEVARD and - GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER EXPANSION SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION PACKET TABLE OF CONTENTS / EXHIBITS A. UPDATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TEXT B. UPDATED COMMERCIAL NEEDS ANALYSIS - REVISION DATED APRIL 26, 2007 C. REVISED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STATEMENT D. PROJECT SUPPORT PETITION - GROUP 1 E. PROJECT SUPPORT PETITION - GROUP 2 F. PROJECT SUPPORT PETITION - GROUP 3 G. LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM DR. ROBERT TOBER GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT APRIL 2007 WILSON BOULEVARD and GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER EXPANSION EXHIBIT A UPDATED GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT TEXT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT APRIL 2075 2. ESTATES DESIGNATION This designation is characterized by low density semi -rural residential lots with limited opportunities for other land uses. Typical lots are 2.25 acres in size. However, there are some legal non- conforming lots as small as 1.14 acres. Intensifying residential density shall not be permitted. The Estates Designation also accommodates future non - residential uses including: • Conditional uses and essential services as defined in the Land Development Code, • Parks, open space and recreational uses, • Group Housing shall be permitted subject to the definitions and regulations as outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 91 -102, adopted October 30, 1991 and consistent with locational requirements in Florida Statutes (Chapter 419.01 F.S.). • (1) Schools and school facilities in the Estates Designation north of 1 -75, and where feasible and mutually acceptable, co- locate schools with other public facilities, such as parks, libraries and community centers to the extent possible. Group Housing includes the following type facilities: • Family Care Facility if occupied by not more than six (6) persons shall be permitted in residential areas. • Group Care Facility, • Care Units, • Adult Congregate Living Facilities, and • Nursing Homes. All of the above uses shall be consistent with all of the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. a. Estates -Mixed Use District (VIII)1) Residential Estates Subdistrict - Single- family residential development may be allowed within the Estates -Mixed Use District at a maximum density of one unit per 2'/< gross acres unless the lot is considered a legal non - conforming lot of record. (VI) 2) Neighborhood Center Subdistrict - Recognizing the need to provide basic goods, services and amenities to Estates residents, Neighborhood Centers have been designated on the Golden Gate Area Future Land Use Map. The Neighborhood Center designation does not guarantee that commercial zoning will be granted. The designation only provides the opportunity to request commercial zoning. (VI) a) The Collier County Land Development Code shall be amended to provide rural design criteria to regulate all new commercial development within Neighborhood Centers. (III)(V)(VI) b) Locations Neighborhood Centers are located along major roadways and are distributed within Golden Gate Estates according to commercial demand estimates. (See Map 9). The (VIII) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2004 -71 on October 26, 2004 32 centers are designed to concentrate all new commercial zoning, and conditional uses, as allowed in the Estates Zoning District, in locations where traffic impacts can be readily accommodated and to avoid strip and disorganized patterns of commercial and conditional use development. Four Neighborhood Centers are established as follows: • Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. This center consists of all four quadrants at the intersection of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards (See Map 10). The NE and SE quadrants of the Center consist of Tract 1 and 2, Unit 14, Tract 17, Unit 13 and the western half of Tract 18, Unit 13 Golden Gate Estates. The NE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is approximately 8.45 acres. The parcels within the NE quadrant shall be interconnected and share access to Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard to minimize connections to these two major roadways. The SE quadrant of Wilson and Golden Gate Boulevards is 7.15 acres, allows 5.00 acres of commercial development, and allocates 2.15 acres to project buffering and right -of -way for Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard. The NW quadrant of the Center is approximately 4.98 acres in size and consists of Tract 144, Unit 11 of Golden Gate Estates. The SW quadrant of the Center is approximately 11.78 acres in size and consists of Tracts 124, 125, and the north 150 feet of Tract 126, Unit 12 of Golden Gate Estates. • Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road Center. The center at Collier Boulevard and Pine Ridge Road is located on both sides of the intersection. Tracts 109 -114, Unit 26, Golden Gate Estates are included in this center as eligible for commercial development. (See Map 11). The E1/2 of Tract 107, Unit 26 is also included within this center but is only to be used for buffer, water management and open space. • Everglades Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard Center. This Center consists of all four quadrants at the intersection of Everglades and Golden Gate Boulevards (See Map 12). The NE quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size and consists of Tract 1, Unit 77 of Golden Gate Estates. The SE quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size and consists of Tract 97, Unit 81 of Golden Gate Estates. The NW quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size and consists of Tract 128, Unit 76 of Golden Gate Estates. The SW quadrant of the Center is approximately 5.46 acres in size and consists of Tract 96, Unit 81 of Golden Gate Estates. • Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard Center. The Immokalee Road and Everglades Boulevard Center is located in the SW and SE quadrants of the intersection (see Map 13) and the parcels lie east and south of the Fire Station. The portion of the Center lying south of the Fire Station is approximately 5. 15 acres in size and consists of Tract 128, Unit 47. The southeast quadrant of the Center, lying east of the Fire Station is approximately 4.05 acres in size and consists of Tracts 113 and 16, Unit 46. 33 (1)(V)(VI)(V111) c) Criteria for land uses at the centers are as follows: • Commercial uses shall be limited to intermediate commercial so as to provide for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar to C -1, C2, or C -3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 91 -102, adopted October 30, 1991), except as prohibited below. • The Neighborhood Center located at the intersection of Pine Ridge Road and Collier Boulevard may be developed at 100% commercial and must provide internal circulation. Any rezoning is encouraged to be in the form of a PUD. This Neighborhood Center may also be utilized for single - family residential or conditional uses allowed in the Estates zoning district such as churches, social or fraternal organizations, childcare centers, schools, and group care facilities. • Parcels immediately adjacent to commercial zoning within the Neighborhood Centers located at the intersections Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard (excluding the SW quadrant), Golden Gate Boulevard and Everglades Boulevard, Everglades Boulevard and Immokalee Road may qualify for Conditional Use under the transitional conditional use provision of the Conditional Uses Subdistrict of this Master Plan Element. • A single project shall utilize no more than 50 % of the total allowed commercial acreage. This percentage may be increased at the discretion of the Board of County Commissioners. • The project shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with adjoining developments. • Access points shall be limited to one per 180 feet commencing from the right -of- way of the major intersecting streets of the Neighborhood Center. A maximum of three curb cuts per quadrant shall be allowed. • Driveways and curb cuts shall be consolidated with adjoining developments, whenever possible. • Driveways accessing parcels on opposite sides of the roadway shall be in direct alignment, except when the roadway median between the two parcels has no opening. • Projects shall provide a 25 -foot wide landscape buffer abutting the external right - of -way. This buffer shall contain two staggered rows of trees that shall be spaced no more than 30 feet on center, and a double row hedge at least 24 inches in height at time of planting and attaining a minimum of three feet height within one year. A minimum of 50% of the 25 -foot wide buffer area shall be comprised of a meandering bed of shrubs and ground covers other than grass. Existing native trees must be retained within this 25 -foot wide buffer area to aid in achieving this buffer requirement; other existing native vegetation shall be retained, where possible, to aid in achieving this buffer requirement. Water retention /detention areas shall be allowed in this buffer area if left in natural state, and drainage conveyance through the buffer area shall be allowed if necessary to reach an external outfall. (VIII) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2004 -71 on October 26, 2004 34 • For Tract 114, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 26, access shall be restricted to 11th Avenue S.W. Also, vehicular interconnection shall be provided to the adjacent property(s) in the Pine Ridge Road /Collier Boulevard Neighborhood Center. • All buildings shall have tile roofs, 'Old Style Florida' metal roofs, or decorative parapet walls above the roofline. The buildings shall be finished in light, subdued colors, except for decorative trim. • Building heights shall be limited to one (1) story, with a maximum height of thirty - five (35) feet. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. • All lighting facilities shall be architecturally - designed, and shall be limited to a height of twenty -five (25) feet. Such lighting facilities shall be shielded from neighboring residential land uses. • Commercial uses shall encourage pedestrian traffic through placement of sidewalks, pedestrian walkways, and marked crosswalks within parking areas. Adjacent projects shall coordinate placement of sidewalks so that a continuous pathway through the Neighborhood Center is created. • All buildings and projects within any single specific quadrant of the Subdistrict shall utilize a common architectural theme. This theme shall be applicable to both building design and signage. • No building footprint shall exceed 5,000 square feet, unless the project is submitted in the form of a PUD. Walkways or courtyards shall connect adjacent buildings. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. • Drive - through establishments shall be limited to banks, with no more than 3 lanes; the drive - through areas shall be architecturally integrated with the rest of the building. This provision only applies east of Collier Boulevard. • Fences or walls may be constructed on the commercial side of the required landscape buffer between adjacent commercial and residential uses. If constructed, such fences or walls shall not exceed five (5) feet in height. Walls shall be constructed of brick or stone. Fences shall be of wood or concrete post or rail types, and shall be of open design (not covered by slats, boards or wire). • Projects directly abutting residential property (property zoned E- Estates and without an approved conditional use) shall provide, at a minimum, a seventy -five (75) feet wide buffer in which no parking uses are permitted. Twenty -five (25) feet of the width of the buffer along the developed area shall be a landscape buffer. A minimum of fifty (50) feet of the buffer width shall consist of retained native vegetation and must be consistent with subsection 3.9.5.5.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code (LDC). The native vegetation retention area may consist of a perimeter berm and be used for water management detention. Any newly constructed berm shall be revegetated to meet subsection 3.9.5.5.6 of the LDC (native vegetation replanting requirements). Additionally, in order to be considered for approval, use of the native vegetation retention area for water management purposes shall meet the following criteria: 35 (VIII) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2004 -71 on October 26, 2004 a. There shall be no adverse impacts to the native vegetation being retained. The additional water directed to this area shall not increase the annual hydro - period unless it is proven that such would have no adverse impact to the existing vegetation. b. If the project requires permitting by the South Florida Water Management District, the project shall provide a letter or official document from the District indicating that the native vegetation within the retention area will not have to be removed to comply with water management requirements. If the District cannot or will not supply such a letter, then the native vegetation retention area shall not be used for water management. C. If the project is reviewed by Collier County, the County engineer shall provide evidence that no removal of native vegetation is necessary to facilitate the necessary storage of water in the water management area. • Projects within the Neighborhood Center Subdistrict that are submitted as PUDs shall provide a functional public open -space component. Such public open -space shall be developed as green space within a pedestrian - accessible courtyard, as per Section 2.4.5.4 of the Collier County Land Development Code, as in effect at the time of P.U.D. approval. • The following principal permitted uses are prohibited within Neighborhood Centers: Drinking Places (5813) and Liquor Stores (5921) Mail Order Houses (5961) Merchandizing Machine Operators (5962) Power Laundries (7211) Crematories (7261) (Does not include non - crematory Funeral Parlors) Radio, TV Representatives (7313) and Direct Mail Advertising Services (7331) NEC Recreational Shooting Ranges, Waterslides, etc. (7999) General Hospitals (8062), Psychiatric Hospitals (8063), and Specialty Hospitals (8069) Elementary and Secondary Schools (8211), Colleges (8221), Junior Colleges (8222) Libraries (8231) Correctional Institutions (9223) Waste Management (9511) Homeless Shelters and Soup Kitchens. a. Commercial uses shall be developed in a campus setting and are limited to: 1. an urgent care center 2. medical and professional offices 3. medical related uses such as a wellness or physical therapy center 36 b. All parking shall be provided at a ratio supportive of medical uses: the more restrictive of 1 parking space per 200 square feet or as required by the Land Development Code. enabling 100 percent medical use. c. The Neighborhood Center boundaries of this quadrant shall not be further expanded. (VII) = Plan Amendment by Ordinance No. 2004 -71 on October 26, 2004 37 WILSON BOULEVARD and GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER EXPANSION EXHIBIT B UPDATED COMMERCIAL NEEDS ANALYSIS -DATED APRIL 26, 2007- GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT APRIL 2007 Golden Gates Estates Mixed Use Project Commercial Needs Analysis April 26, 2007 Prepared for Mr. Kenneth R. Johnson, Trustee Goodlette Coleman & Johnson, PA Mr. Michael Fernandez Planning Development, Inc. Prepared by Fishkind & Associates, Inc. 12051 Corporate Boulevard Orlando, Florida 32817 407 - 382 -3256 Gate Estates Mixed Use Project rcial Needs Analysis REVISED AND UPDATED Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project Commercial Needs Analysis (April 26, 2007) 1.0 Introduction 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this report is to present a commercial needs analysis for the proposed change to Collier County's Comprehensive Land Use Plan ( "Plan "). Planning Development, Inc. ( "Client") is proposing approximately 34 +/- acres of mixed use development ( "Project") including a commercial office and retail component and a small amount of residential development at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard, in the Golden Gate Estates area of Collier County ( "County "), Florida. Fishkind & Associates, Inc., ( "Consultant ") has been engaged to prepare this report. 1.2 Overview of needs analysis In the context of amending the adopted Plan the applicant must demonstrate the need to amend the plan. Typically, this takes the form of a comparison of o The supply of existing land/Square footage currently planned for various commercial uses o The demand for land/Square footage based on projected population in the market Historically, these comparisons have focused their studies County -wide. This analysis studies the market for commercial retail demand around the project and portions of the County within certain drive time distances. There are two related reasons for this type of analysis. First, consumers are assumed to maximize benefit over all goods and services consumed subject to their income. This type of analysis requires that travel costs are either explicitly or implicitly accounted for during the consideration of the consumers' income constraint. This analysis requires the Consultant to narrow the scope of the analysis from the county level down to a local market level. The Consultant further reduces the analysis based on calibrated propensity to travel estimates. Second, the Consultant considers whether the choice of location is a Pareto improvement for consumers. ( Pareto improvement means that no consumers are made worse off, and at least one is made better off.) That is, the Consultant asks the question whether additional retail space makes at least one local market better off, without reducing the welfare of all others. An analysis of commercial retail space over the whole of a county may lead to the wrong conclusion of where to develop new space. That is, the county as a whole may appear to need more retail space to support the aggregate level of demand generated by its residents. With many County -wide choices of commercially -zoned lands available, the development of one site over another may lead to an over supply in one location and an under supply in another. This is precisely the outcome the County wants to avoid. Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project Commercial Needs Analysis Therefore: o By narrowing the focus of this study to the local market, the Consultant determines if this market has a need for additional retail space. o The Consultant can replicate a competitive outcome, and ensure that the welfare of all other local markets is improved or unchanged. 1.3 Definition of the market area and target population The primary market area used for this analysis was developed with guidelines from the Urban Land Use Institute', using ISite, Site Selection Software, version 2004.01.18, produced by GeoVue, Inc. The primary market area is neighborhood/community serving in nature. The market is located at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard in the Golden Gate Estates area of the County, extending in a 20- minute drive time radius surrounding the subject site. The need to amend the County's Comprehensive Plan and Future Land Use Map will be based on an analysis of this 20- minute drive -time market's need for additional community and neighborhood commercial retail development. Estimates of existing and projected households and population for the primary market area are provided for years 2005, 2010, 2020 and 2030 in Table 4. These figures were estimated using ISite, Site Selection Software, data gathered by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) at the University of Florida, and the Consultant's professional judgment. 1.4 Analysis Process The process of determining the need for additional retail land is a four -step process, as outlined below. o Inventory current supply of commercial space in the market area o Inventory vacant commercial area, parcels zoned potential commercial by the Future Land Use Map (FLUM), and land parcels available for community and neighborhood retail use o Project future population/households to determine future commercial land needs and compare against commercial land allocation ratios o Determine impact of rezoning additional land area on land allocation ratio within the primary market area ' Beyard, Michael D., W. Paul O'Mara, et al. Shopping Center Development Handbook. Third Edition. Washington, D.C.: ULI -the Urban Land Institute, 1999. p.l 1 Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project Commercial Needs Analysis 2.0 The Supply of Commercial Space 2.1 Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project's Primary Market — Future Land Use The analysis begins with the existing supply of commercial square feet in the primary market area. The primary market is community and neighborhood in nature as defined by the Urban Land Use Institute. The market is located at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Boulevard and Wilson Boulevard in the Golden Gate Estates area of the County, extending in a 20- minute drive time radius surrounding the subject site. Table 1 provides the current inventory of commercial space based on the Property Appraiser's (`PA ") data, as well as data provided by the Comprehensive Planning Department ( "CPD "). These data provide an estimate of 1,099,089 square feet of retail space. Table 1. Current Supply of Developed and Vacant Commercial - Retail Space in Mixed Use Project's Market County Wide 20 -Min. Developed Parcels 0 - 50 Acres # Parcels 2,347 56 Square Feet 9,475,548 359,729 50 Acres and up # Parcels 2,326 0 Square Feet 12,526,088 0 Vacant Parcels 0 - 50 Acres # Parcels 1,441 74 Square Feet 11,119,336 291,360 50 Acres and up # Parcels 2 0 Square Feet 428,879 0 Potential Commercial 0 - 50 Acres # Parcels - 34 Square Feet - 448,000 50 Acres and up # Parcels - 0 Square Feet - 0 Total 0 - 50 Acres # Parcels 3,788 164 Square Feet 20,594,884 1,099,089 50 Acres and up # Parcels 2,328 0 Square Feet 12,954,967 0 Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 4 Commercial Needs Analysis Fifty acres is the largest land area needed to accommodate the maximum of 300,000 square feet of development — the upper threshold of community serving retail developments. Based on this criteria 1,099,089 square feet of the total existing stock of retail space (comprising 359,729 developed square feet and 739,360 = (448,000 +291,360) potentially developable square feet) is community or neighborhood in nature. The total developed commercial- retail inventory is 46.64 acres as shown in Table 2. Furthermore, only 53.24 = (46.64 +6.6) developed acres and 92.42 = (36.42 +56) vacant and potential commercial are either community or neighborhood in size. Table 2. Commercial Acreage in Collier County and Mixed Use Project's Market Total 20,828 145.66 County Sq. Ft. Vacant Commercial Wide 20 -Min. Potential Commercial Acres Acres Vacant Commercial 6,411 36.42 Potential Commercial - 56 Retail Built 12,214 46.64 Non - Retail Built 2,203 6.6 Total 20,828 145.66 Contained in the 53.24 developed acres are the two adjacent parcels owned by E's Country Store LLC (Folio Numbers 37280040109 and 37280040002). Contained in the 92.42 vacant acres is the adjacent parcel owned by Wilson Boulevard Center (Folio Number 37221120004). 3.0 Proposed Amendments and the Impact on the Supply of Land Designated for Commercial Use in the Plan 3.1 Impact of the Proposed Change on the Supply of Land for Commercial Use If the proposed change for Project is approved, it would add approximately 165,000 square feet to the inventory of commercial - retail land in the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the community and neighborhood markets. The total allocation of commercial - retail acreage has been estimated to be approximately 145.66 acres. The requested change will increase the supply of commercial (retail and restaurant) acres by roughly 14 percent at a density of 8,000 square feet per acre. Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 5 Commercial Needs Analysis Sq. Ft. Sq. Ft. Vacant Commercial 11,548,215 291,360 Potential Commercial - 448,000 Retail Built 22,001,636 359,729 Non - Retail Built 8,988,550 35.585 Total 42, 538,401 1,134,674 Contained in the 53.24 developed acres are the two adjacent parcels owned by E's Country Store LLC (Folio Numbers 37280040109 and 37280040002). Contained in the 92.42 vacant acres is the adjacent parcel owned by Wilson Boulevard Center (Folio Number 37221120004). 3.0 Proposed Amendments and the Impact on the Supply of Land Designated for Commercial Use in the Plan 3.1 Impact of the Proposed Change on the Supply of Land for Commercial Use If the proposed change for Project is approved, it would add approximately 165,000 square feet to the inventory of commercial - retail land in the Collier County Comprehensive Plan and the community and neighborhood markets. The total allocation of commercial - retail acreage has been estimated to be approximately 145.66 acres. The requested change will increase the supply of commercial (retail and restaurant) acres by roughly 14 percent at a density of 8,000 square feet per acre. Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 5 Commercial Needs Analysis 4.0 Analysis of the Need for the Proposed Amendments to the FLUM 4.1 Overview As noted above, the need for amendments to the adopted FLUM revolves around whether or not the FLUM contains sufficient land to satisfy the future projected level of demand for land. The applicant must demonstrate that the amount of land allocated in the FLUM to community and neighborhood retail uses is insufficient to accommodate future demand while providing for a reasonable degree of market flexibility. For this study, the supply of land with a commercial - retail development and the supply of vacant commercial designated land was compared to the demand for commercial- retail land as generated by the projected population growth of the market area. The discussion below provides this analysis. 4.2 Demand for Commercial Space in the Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project Market and the Allocation Ratio Since the 2000 census, the population in the market has increased by approximately 56 percent. Table 3 provides Fishkind & Associates, Ines population projections. Table 3. Population Projections for Mixed Use Project's Market Year Pooulation 2000 22,046 2010 53,189 2020 72,108 2030 97,774 Source: Fishkind Estimate using ISite, demographics package Population data was used as the basis of projecting demand for commercial land. The projected population was used to project households as shown in Table 4. Table 4. Population and Household Projections Sources: Estimate using ISite, demographics package Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 6 Commercial Needs Analysis Household Year Pooulation Households Growth Growth / Year 2005 34,396 12,456 2010 53,189 21,345 8,889 889 2020 72,108 28,937 7,592 759 2030 97,774 39,237 10,300 1030 Sources: Estimate using ISite, demographics package Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 6 Commercial Needs Analysis This new information indicates that the market's demand for commercial space will also increase. The Consultant has developed a retail demand model to project the demand for retail space based on the number of households, their income and demographic characteristics, the number of visitors, and the number of employees in the relevant market area. The documentation for the model along with the model projections is rather voluminous. This information is reproduced here as Appendix Al. Table 5 provides the projected retail demand and compares demand to the existing supply of commercial space and land available to accommodate commercial demand in the future. The comparison of retail demand to current retail supply and available supply converts all vacant acres and assumes full development within the market. Table 5. Demand for Commercial Sq. Ft. and Acreage General Commercial 2010 2020 2030 Primary Market Retail Demand (sq.ft.) 872,369 1,119,308 1,432,131 Supply Net GLA (sq.ft) 1,099,089 1,099,089 1,099,089 Acreaee Analysis without Adiustment 2010 2020 2030 Total Commercial Acres 145.66 145.66 145.66 Occupied Acres 53.24 53.24 53.24 Vacant Acres 92.42 92.42 92.42 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 1.26 .98 .77 As noted on page 4 in Table 1, the effective supply of existing commercial space totals 1,099,089 square feet. As shown by Table 5, the demand projection estimates there is demand for 872,369, 1,119,308 and 1,432,131 square feet of commercial space in the market for the years 2010, 2020, and 2030 respectively. As shown in Table 5, there are 145.66 acres of land designated for commercial use. Therefore, the ratio of the total supply of land designated for commercial use compared to the total demand for this land equals 1.26, .98, and .77 for the years 2010, 2020, and 2030 respectively. The allocation ratio is substantially below the minimum desired level of 2.0. The allocation ratio is low enough to warrant the addition of this commercial- retail land use to the FLUM. The lack of available supply will artificially constrain the market and raise prices in the short- to mid -term and that would warrant the addition of additionally zoned land to accommodate this type of use. Figure 1 illustrates the trend of decreasing commercial allocation ratios. Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 7 Commercial Needs Analysis Figure 1. Commercial Allocation Ratio for Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project Based on this analysis, there is a clear and compelling case for adding additional land with community and neighborhood commercial use to this market. Any ratio less than 2.0 justifies the addition of land to the inventory for any market that is not approaching build out conditions. As noted here, this market's commercial ratio will decrease to 0.77 by 2030. It is just these types of situations that make it good planning policy to have a sufficiently high ratio — to accommodate the expected demand in a meaningful fashion. 4.3 Impact of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment for Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project As noted above, the proposal for the Project would add approximately 165,000 square feet of commercial - retail land to the market. The following Table 6 displays the impacts of adding this additional land to the inventory. In 2010 the additional land increases the allocation ratio from 1.26 to 1.45. An allocation ratio of 1.45 is sufficiently closer to the desired level of 2.0 for the market to have the necessary flexibility to meet future demand. The allocation ratios are more than reasonable with the inclusion of the Project in the FLUM. This is illustrated in Figure 2. Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project $ Commercial Needs Analysis 15 �- '�'�� r Oill Yr Ei itpl s_l� 1 W, & tif'�T t „�} I� �f,a R u5,:4�;�<� 0 � I PM 11 T ti lj� 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 Year Based on this analysis, there is a clear and compelling case for adding additional land with community and neighborhood commercial use to this market. Any ratio less than 2.0 justifies the addition of land to the inventory for any market that is not approaching build out conditions. As noted here, this market's commercial ratio will decrease to 0.77 by 2030. It is just these types of situations that make it good planning policy to have a sufficiently high ratio — to accommodate the expected demand in a meaningful fashion. 4.3 Impact of the Proposed Land Use Plan Amendment for Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project As noted above, the proposal for the Project would add approximately 165,000 square feet of commercial - retail land to the market. The following Table 6 displays the impacts of adding this additional land to the inventory. In 2010 the additional land increases the allocation ratio from 1.26 to 1.45. An allocation ratio of 1.45 is sufficiently closer to the desired level of 2.0 for the market to have the necessary flexibility to meet future demand. The allocation ratios are more than reasonable with the inclusion of the Project in the FLUM. This is illustrated in Figure 2. Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project $ Commercial Needs Analysis Figure 2. Allocation Ratios with the Inclusion of the Proposed Additional Commercial Acreage for Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project Table 6. Analysis of Adding the Mixed Use Project Proposed Land Use Plan Change to the Existing Inventory of Commercial Space General Commercial 2010 2020 2030 Primary Market Retail Demand (sq.ft.) 2 -- — — o Supply Net GLA (sq.ft) 1,264,089 1,264,089 1,264,089 Acreage Analysis with Adjustment 2010 2020 A 1.5 -- 21 21 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand � '. it �'N i ��r IVJ•t i � 1.13 .88 C 0.5 0 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 I Year Table 6. Analysis of Adding the Mixed Use Project Proposed Land Use Plan Change to the Existing Inventory of Commercial Space General Commercial 2010 2020 2030 Primary Market Retail Demand (sq.ft.) 872,369 1,119,308 1,432,131 Supply Net GLA (sq.ft) 1,264,089 1,264,089 1,264,089 Acreage Analysis with Adjustment 2010 2020 2030 Total Commercial Acres 165.66 165.66 165..66 Occupied Acres 53.24 53.24 53.24 Vacant Acres 92.42 92.42 92.42 Mixed Use Project 21 21 21 Allocation Ratio Supply /Demand 1.45 1.13 .88 Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 9 Commercial Needs Analysis 5.0 Commercial - Office Need As noted above, this Project is planned as a 34 +/- acre mixed use development. The Office component for the Project will comprise of approximately 60,000 square feet of the non- residential development. The Consultant has analyzed the demand for new office space in the County, on a per capita basis, as well as the implied need for additional office acreage within 2 miles of the Project site. Using records provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser's office, the Consultant has determined: There is no developed office acreage within 2 miles of the Project. Land uses included in this analysis were code 17- Office Bldg, Non - profit Svcs, One -story; 18- Office Bldg, Non- profit Svcs, Multi -story; 19- Professional Svcs Bldg.; 23- Financial Institutions; and 24- Insurance Company Offices. There are no vacant commercial parcels within 2 -miles of the project site. Land uses included in this analysis were code 10- Vacant Commercial. There are three parcels within 2 miles of the Project, comprising 6.92 acres, designated as land use code 0- Vacant Residential. Typically lands zoned 0 -Vacant Residential are not included as competing office supply however, these parcels are currently in the application process to consist of approximately 45,000 square feet of office space so therefore we are including them as competing. The folio numbers for these parcels are: 37169480000, 37169440008, and 37169560108. When determining the demand for office uses, the Consultant utilized the Collier County Property Appraiser's database to inventory the total square footage of all existing office uses as of 2005. This total was then divided by the 2005 Collier County total population as determined by BEBR to arrive at a per capita office demand. Table 6.1, below, indicates the total office development in Collier County, corresponding population, and per capita office demand. Table 6.1 Collier County Population and Office Forecast Office Type 2005 Bldg Saft 2005 Collier Poo. Per Capita One -Story Professional 1,071,494 Class A 1,920,641 Medical and Professional 333.907 Total 3,326,042 317,788 10.47 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. & Collier County Property Appraiser & BEBR Population Studies Through our analysis, the Consultant has determined that, on average, the County needs 10.47 Sq. Ft. of office space per person. Within the 2 -mile market surrounding the Project the Consultant has determined that by the year 2010, the population will reach approximately 7,109 persons. The Consultant's population forecast for the market surrounding the Project is shown in Table 6.2. Additionally, Table 6.2 indicates the office needs associated with these historic and forecast population levels. Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 10 Commercial Needs Analysis Table 6.2 Historic & Forecast Population for 2 -Mile Market Without the Proposed Amendment According to the Consultant's analysis there is an immediate need for office uses in the 2 -mile market surrounding the Project. There is an approximate need for 9.06 acres of office land in this market as of 2005. By 2010, this need is expected to increase to 11.23 acres. Unless the proposed amendment is added to the FLUM, by 2010 the allocation ratio for office land is expected to drop to 0.62. There is insufficient land within this market designated for office use or potentially available for office use, which reduces the amount of sufficient choices for a developer to accommodate the demand. This allocation ratio is low enough to warrant the addition of this land to the FLUM. If the proposed changes for this project are approved, The County will add approximately 9 acres of office supply to this market. By adding land allocated to office development, the County will reduce the need for additional office lands. This land will increase the 2010 allocation ratio from 0.62 to 1.42. By 2010, the allocation ratio will reach 1.42, below the desired level of 2.00. Table 6.3 shows the effect of the proposed amendment on the allocation of office land within the 2 -mile market. Table 6.3 Historic & Forecast Population for 2 -Mile Market With the Proposed Amendment Office Sq. Ft. Office Acres Office Acres Office Acres Allocation Year Population Need Need Supplied Need Ratio 1990 1,532 16,034 2.42 6.92 (4.50) 2.86 2000 4,562 47,747 7.21 6.92 0.29 0.96 2005 5,732 59,992 9.06 6.92 2.14 0.76 2010 7,109 74,404 11.23 6.92 4.31 0.62 Note: Acres demanded are calculated as Sq. Ft. demanded divided by 6,624 Sq. Ft. per Acre, as determined by Property Appraiser's records. Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. & Collier County Property Appraiser's Office According to the Consultant's analysis there is an immediate need for office uses in the 2 -mile market surrounding the Project. There is an approximate need for 9.06 acres of office land in this market as of 2005. By 2010, this need is expected to increase to 11.23 acres. Unless the proposed amendment is added to the FLUM, by 2010 the allocation ratio for office land is expected to drop to 0.62. There is insufficient land within this market designated for office use or potentially available for office use, which reduces the amount of sufficient choices for a developer to accommodate the demand. This allocation ratio is low enough to warrant the addition of this land to the FLUM. If the proposed changes for this project are approved, The County will add approximately 9 acres of office supply to this market. By adding land allocated to office development, the County will reduce the need for additional office lands. This land will increase the 2010 allocation ratio from 0.62 to 1.42. By 2010, the allocation ratio will reach 1.42, below the desired level of 2.00. Table 6.3 shows the effect of the proposed amendment on the allocation of office land within the 2 -mile market. Table 6.3 Historic & Forecast Population for 2 -Mile Market With the Proposed Amendment Taking into account all developed land and vacant commercial land in the market, there are currently insufficient lands designated for office uses. The 2010 allocation ratio of 0.62 indicates a tight relationship between the demand for, and the supply of, office space. The under - allocation of suitable office property supports the need for the additional acreage. Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 11 Commercial Needs Analysis Office Sq. Ft. Office Acres Office Acres Office Acres Allocation Year Population Need Need Supplied Need Ratio 1990 1,532 16,034 2.42 6.92 (4.50) 2.86 2000 4,562 47,747 7.21 6.92 0.29 0.96 2005 5,732 59,992 9.06 6.92 2.14 0.76 2010 7,109 74,404 11.23 15.98 (4.75) 1.42 Note: Acres demanded are calculated as Sq. Ft. demanded divided by 6,624 Sq. Ft. per Acre, as determined by Property Appraiser's records. Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc. & Collier County Property Appraiser's Office Taking into account all developed land and vacant commercial land in the market, there are currently insufficient lands designated for office uses. The 2010 allocation ratio of 0.62 indicates a tight relationship between the demand for, and the supply of, office space. The under - allocation of suitable office property supports the need for the additional acreage. Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 11 Commercial Needs Analysis 6.0 Conclusions Concerning the Proposed Change to the Land Use Plan for Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project Taking into account all developed and vacant commercial land in the market; there are currently insufficient lands designated for commercial uses. The 2030 retail allocation ratio of .77 indicates a very tight relationship between the demand for, and the supply of retail space in the future. The 2010 office allocation ratio indicates, also, indicates a tight relationship between the demand and supply for office space. The commercial retail and commercial office components of this Project are designed to serve the community and neighborhood demand for commercial space. The location provides the access and visibility that are required for this type of development. The under - allocation of suitable commercial property supports the need for the additional commercial acreage. Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 12 Commercial Needs Analysis APPENDIX A 1 GOLDEN GATE ESTATES MIXED USE PROJECT MARKET DEMAND ANALYSIS RETAIL DEMAND METHODOLOGY 1.0 Methodology The methodology employed in the analysis of the demand for retail space at this site is based on a consumer expenditures model. This model can estimate the aggregate market demand for retail space, the demand for retail space at a specific location, and the effective supply of competing retailers in the area. The net demand for retail space at the location being studied is determined as the difference between the site demand and the effective supply of competition. 2.0 Aggregate Market - Retail Demand Fishkind & Associates, Inc. ( "Fishkind ") has developed an in -house model to determine retail demand. This model estimates retail demand by square footage, shopping center type and store type. The model incorporates multiple data sources. These sources are census based ( "I- Site ") local area households and household income data, consumer expenditure profiles from the U.S. Department of Labor Consumer Expenditure Survey, Department of Revenue Gross Sales data, and Urban Land Institute shopping center tenant profiles, square footage requirements and average sales per square foot by store type from the publication Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. The model operates by first determining retail household expenditures for market area households. Expenditures are determined through application of the results of the 2000 Consumer Expenditure Survey, conducted by the U.S. Department of Labor. This survey of over 30,000 households nationwide provides detailed information on average dollar expenditure amounts and the expenditure percent of household income, for all household expenditures. The income expenditure percentages are applied to the average local area household income and multiplied by the number of households to determine market area spending potential for retail store goods. Next, the historic Department of Revenue (DOR) Sales data (for the county in question) is indexed by tenant classification, from the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers. The expected expenditures on retail goods are then applied to this county specific (DOR) index to determine an estimate of spending by major store type (tenant classification). The determination of sales by retail center (neighborhood, community, regional, super - regional) is determined through the construction of an index of surveyed sales by center type (also located in the Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers). Supportable square feet of a retail center is determined by applying the average sales per square foot of GLA, found in Dollars and Cents of Shopping Centers, to the expected sales by store type (tenant classification). In addition to determining the supportable square feet of retail space, Fishkind & Associates has determined the expected sales by DOR retail classification, which is a subset of the individual store types (tenant classifications). s Tenant Classification are: general merchandise, food, food service, clothing and accessories, shoes, home furnishings, home appliances /music, building materials and hardware, automotive, hobby /special interest, gifts /specialty, jewelry, liquor, drugs, other retail, personal services, entertainment/community. Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 13 Commercial Needs Analysis 3.0 Determination of Expected Location Sales & Impacts to Competition The determination of sales is a multi part process. Sales to be made at the location of a proposed retail project are based on the constant sales per square foot measure used in the determination of the demand for retail space, and an estimate of excess spending at the existing and proposed retailers. Potential location specific expenditures are determined in accordance with Sections 3.1 and 3.2. From the potential expenditures and demanded space, a determination of "base- line" spending per square foot can be made for each store type. Spending per square feet of store space is then applied to the estimate of existing store space to determine a total "base- line" sales estimate. This "base- line" estimate will be less than the total potential expenditures. Therefore, an estimate of excess spending can be made from the difference between the estimated total expenditures and the "base- line" estimate. After the determination of "base- line" sales per square foot and excess sales per square foot, the proposed project needs to be added to the supply of retail space. At this point adjusted total sales can be determined from the "base- line" sales per square foot and the adjusted supply of retail space (existing plus proposed). The adjusted excess spending, as a result of the proposed retail project, is determined by the difference between the (adjusted) "base- line" expected spending and the estimate of total expenditures. An estimation of the expected sales for the proposed project is determined by the size of the project and the total estimated spending per square foot, which is the "base- line" sales per square foot plus the adjusted excess spending per square foot as a result of the project. The final impact to sales per square foot of competing retailers in the market surrounding the proposed project is calculated as the difference between the excess sales per square foot, with and without the proposed project. Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 14 Commercial Needs Analysis 4.0 20- Minute Drive Time Radius Surrounding Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project } �t BONrr • }y, a Iw } } I NAPL,ES VAR.K } } i Pf'. it QY HAY } 1:* t 1% NAPW Golden Gate Estates Mixed Use Project 15 Commercial Needs Analysis WILSON BOULEVARD and GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER EXPANSION EXHIBIT C REVISED TRANSPORTATION IMPACT STATEMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT APRIL 2007 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. TRAFFIC IMPACT STATEMENT O GOLDEN GATE BLVD @ SW 1ST ST CPD (PROJECT NO. 050319 -10) PREPARED BY: TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. 13881 Plantation Road, Suite 11 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 -4339 239 - 278 -3090 Document Date: June 7, 2005 Revised May 2, 2007 Limited revision to convert proposed intensity from shopping center (retail) to medical office. Base document data was not updated. TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. May 2, 2007 Mr. Michael Fernandez Planning Development Incorporated 5133 Castello Drive, Unit 42 Naples, FL 34103 RE: Golden Gate Blvd @ I" Street SW CPD Dear Mr. Fernandez: 13881 PLANTAI ION ROAD, SUITE 11 FORT MYERS, FT 33912 -4339 OFFICE 239.278.3090 FAX 2.39.278.1906 TRAFFIC ENGINEERING 1 RANSPORTATION PLANNING SIGNAL SYSTEMS /DESIGN Based on your request, TR Transportation Consultants has updated the previously submitted TIS for the above mentioned project in order to reflect a 45,000 square foot medical office development rather than a 45,000 square foot shopping center development. Based on the changes to the use on the site, Table 1 has been created to indicate the impact to the trip generation. A negative value within Table I. indicates a reduction in traffic as a result of the proposed changes in land use while a positive value reflects an increase in traffic. 'Fable I 'Trip Generation Golden Gate Boulevard ti SW ISL Street CPD Land Use As can be seen within Table 1, the medical office use will decrease the trip generation during the critical PM peak hole as well as over the course of the entire day. However, the trip generation will be slightly increased during the AM peak hour. Regardless, concurrency is measured during the PM Peak hour, so the proposed development will significantly reduce the total traffic generated on the subject site. It should also be noted that, after a reduction to the retail traffic for pass -by, the medical office use will still generate fewer trips in the PM peak hour. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact Inc. Sincerely, Robert L. Price Senior Transportation Consultant Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday P.M. Peak Hour Daily (2 -way) In Out Total In Out Total Shopping Center 60 35 95 175 195 370 4,040 (45,000 sq- ft.) Medical Office 90 20 110 40 110 150 1,625 (45,000 sq. ft.) Trip Difference +30 15 _ +15 -135 -85 220 2,415 As can be seen within Table 1, the medical office use will decrease the trip generation during the critical PM peak hole as well as over the course of the entire day. However, the trip generation will be slightly increased during the AM peak hour. Regardless, concurrency is measured during the PM Peak hour, so the proposed development will significantly reduce the total traffic generated on the subject site. It should also be noted that, after a reduction to the retail traffic for pass -by, the medical office use will still generate fewer trips in the PM peak hour. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact Inc. Sincerely, Robert L. Price Senior Transportation Consultant TRANSPORTATION jZ CONSULTANTS, INC. CONTENTS INTRODUCTION 11. EXISTING CONDITIONS 111. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT IV. TRIP GENERATION V. "TRIP DISTRIBUTION V1. FUTURE TRAFFIC CONDITIONS VII. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE VIII. CONCLUSION �j TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. 1. INTRODUCTION TR Transportation Consultants, Inc. has conducted a traffic impact statement for the proposed re- zoning of the subject site. The site is located in the southeast corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Boulevard and SW I" Street in the Golden Gate Estates area of Collier County, Florida. The site location is illustrated on Figure 1. The proposed Golden Gate Boulevard (q), SW I" Street site will allow for the development of a maximum of 45,000 square feet of commercial Floor area. Access to the site is being proposed via three access locations, full access points to SW I" Street and Wilson Boulevard in addition to a right in/right out access to Golden Gate Boulevard. This report examines the impact of the development on the surrounding roadways and intersections. Trip generation and assignments to the various site access drives will be completed and analysis conducted to determine the impacts of the development on the surrounding intersections. 11. EXISTING CONDITIONS The subject site is currently vacant. The site is bordered to the north by Golden Gate Boulevard and vacant land zoned for commercial uses. To the west, the site is bordered by SW I" Street. On the southern property boundary, the subject site is bordered by vacant land that is zoned for residential uses. To the east, the site is bordered by Wilson Boulevard and vacant land that is zoned for commercial uses. Golden Gate Boulevard is a four -lane divided arterial roadway that borders the subject site to the north. Golden Gate Boulevard has a posted speed limit of 45 mph and is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. 'fhe level of Service Standard on the section of Golden Gate Boulevard from Collier Boulevard to Wilson Boulevard is LOS "D ", or 2,350 vehicles. 'I he nearest signalized intersection on Golden Gate Boulevard in the Page I Ole _Lhk NIP . _ - s z!` - Z cl t m _ N C _ TRANSPORTATION PROJECT LOCATION MAP Revised 5/2/07 Figure 1 CONSULTANTS, INC. GOLDEN GATE BLVD @ SW 1st St CPD TRANSPORTATION K CONSULTANTS, INC. vicinity of the subject site is Wilson Boulevard approximately 680 feet to the east of SW I" Street. Wilson Boulevard is a two -lane collector roadway that borders the subject site to the east. Wilson Boulevard is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. The intersection of Wilson Boulevard and Golden Gate Boulevard currently allows full turning movements under signalized conditions. SW I" Street is a two -lane local roadway that borders the subject site to the west. SW I" Street is under the jurisdiction of Collier County. Concurrency is not measured on SW I" Street since it is classified as a local roadway. The intersection of SW I" Street and Golden (late Boulevard currently allows full turning movements under unsignalized conditions. 111. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT The proposed Golden (fate Boulevard (0 SW I" Street CPD will allow for the development of a maximum of 45.000 square feet of commercial Floor area within the Golden Gate Fstates area of Collier County. Based on this application, the commercial floor area is being restricted to office space. Table 1 summarizes the land use utilized for Gip generation purposes for the subject development. Table I Golden Gate Boulevard (:q?, SW 1" Street CPD Land Uses Land Use Size Medical Office ti u� �zot 45,000 square feet Access to the subject site is proposed via full access points to SW I" Street and Wilson Boulevard in addition to a right -in /right out access to Golden Gate Boulevard. SW 1" Street will provide full unsignahzed access to Golden Gate Boulevard while Wilson Page 3 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Boulevard's intersection with Golden Gate Boulevard operates under signalized conditions. IV. TRIP GENERATION the trip generation for the proposed development was determined by referencing the Institute of Transportation Engineer's (ITE) report, titled Trip Generation, 7 "' Fdition. "Trip generation calculations were performed for the development based on a "worst case" trip generation scenario for the proposed office use. Therefore, the trip generation calculations were performed based on band Use Code 720 (Medical /Dental Office Building) for the office use since medical office typically generates a higher amount of traffic than general office space The equations for this land use are contained in the Appendix of this report for reference. Table 2 outlines the anticipated weekday A.M. and P.M. peak hour trip generation of the proposed Golden Gate Boulevard (d,) SW I" Street CPD. The daily trip generation is also indicated within Table 2. Table 2 Trip Generation Golden Gate Boulevard (a ) SW I" Street CPD Land Use Weekday A.M. Peak Hour Weekday Y.M. Peak Hour Daily (2 -way) In Out Total In Out Total Medical Office 90 20 110 40 110 150 1,625 (45,000 s . ft.) V. TRIP DISTRIBUTION The trips shown in Table 2 were then assigned to the surrounding roadway system based upon the anticipated routes the drivers will utilize to approach the site. The project distribution utilized for the Golden Gate Boulevard @a SW I" Street CPD was assumed based upon the general lack of similar commercial sites within the Golden Gate Estates. Thus, approximately 40%o of the development traffic was assumed to originate from the west while the remaining 60% of the development traffic was assumed to come from the Page 4 F TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. north, east, and south. The project distribution for the proposed development is indicated in Figure 2. It should be noted that the project traffic was not distributed to Collier Boulevard due to the fact that it is unlikely that a significant amount of the project traffic will originate from the Collier Boulevard corridor. There are several planned /existing commercial opportunities along the Collier Boulevard corridor, so the majority of the Golden Gate Boulevard (W SW I" Street CPU traffic will originate from within the Golden Gate Estates area. Based upon the traffic distribution indicated within Figure 2, the project traffic was distributal to the projects access points to Wilson Boulevard, SW I" Street, and Golden Gate Boulevard. Figure 3 indicates the site traffic assignment for the Golden Crate Boulevard (a), SW I" Street CPD. 'this graphic also indicates the site traffic assignment to Golden Gate Boulevard's intersection with Wilson Boulevard and SW I" Street. VI. FUTURE, "TRAFFIC CONDITIONS In order to determine which roadway segments surrounding the site will be significantly impacted, Table ]A, contained in the Appendix, was created. This table indicates which roadway links will accommodate an amount of project traffic greater than the 3 % -3 % -5% Significance "Pest. Therefore, the project traffic was compared with the Capacity for Peak [lour — Peak Direction traffic conditions as defined by the 2006 Collier County Annual Update Inventory Report (AUIR). Based on the information contained within "Fable IA, no roadway links will be significantly impacted in accordance with the Collier County 3 % -3 % -5% Significance 'lest. Therefore. eoncurrency link analysis was only required on Golden Gate Boulevard adjacent to the subject site. In addition to the significant impact criteria, Table IA also includes a concurrency analysis on the Collier County Roadway network. The current remaining capacity indicated within Table IA was taken from the 2006 AUIR. The project traffic was then subtracted from the remaining trips in order to obtain determine the remaining capacity Page 5 N W E S N T.S w Lij Q 0 0 IMMOKALEE ROAD O w J O 201% p 0] VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD 00 O N >J LL Q i w GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD ♦30 %-► O m ♦40 %-► w in J � O V >� PINE RIDGE ROAD 101% LEGEND 4-20 %♦ PERCENT DISTRIBUTION TRANSPORTATION PROJECT TRAFFIC DISTRIBUTION Revised 5/2/07 Figure 2 CONSULTANTS,INc. GOLDEN GATE BLVD @ SW 1st St CPD N W E S N.T S. U3 < Q w cn 0 l/] Q 0] o Z O 20 (5) // + 'Ir 10 (5) j 4-20(15) (10) 20 -111� (5) _ ♦ �► GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD ' (5) 15 (10) 20 N 1 (25) 5 o m v ri 0 o ti k 10 (40) 3 (1% NN f (25) (10)-N f 000 WEEKDAY AM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC 4- (000) WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC INDICATES LESS THAN 5 TRIPS �j TRANSPORTATION SITE TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENT Revised 5/2/07 I ( CONSULTANTS, INC. GOLDEN GATE BLVD @ SW 1 st St CPD Figure 3 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. after the Golden Gate Boulevard SW Is' Street CPD traffic is added to the surrounding roadway network. V11. PROJECTED CONCURRENCY AND LEVEL OF SERVICE Based upon the intotlnation contained within Table IA, sufficient capacity will be available on the Collier County roadway network after the addition of the Golden Gate Boulevard (a,) SW 1" Street CPD traffic. Figure 4 indicates the remaining capacity on Golden Gate Boulevard based upon the existing conditions as well as aftcr the addition of the Golden Gate Boulevard (a) SW 1" Street CPD traffic. As can be seen within Table lA and Figure 4, there will be available capacity after the addition of the traffic associated with the subject development, so there are no concurrency issues oil the Collier County roadway network. Intersection analysis was required as a result of the proposed development at the site access location to Golden Gate Boulevard. In order to perform the intersection analysis at this intersection at build -out, the through volumes on Golden (late Boulevard were assumed to be the same in each direction. The peak hour, peak direction through volume was calculated by subtracting the remaining capacity on Golden Gate Boulevard from the total capacity available for the roadway. In other words, 332 trips (remaining capacity) were subtracted from 2,350 trips (total capacity) in order to determine that the existing peak hour, peak direction traffic volume on Golden Gate Boulevard is 2,018 vehicles. t'he intersection turning movements indicated within Figure 3 were added to the 2,018 vehicle through volume in order to perform the intersection analysis. Thesc volumes were then inputted into the latest Highway Capacity Software (HCS +) based on the right - in /right -out conditions of the site access intersection to Golden Gate Boulevard. Based upon the results of the intersection analysis, the northbound approach to Golden Gate Boulevard will operate at LOS "C" or better after the addition of the Golden Gate Boulevard C SW 1" Street site trallic to the surrounding roadway network. "the intersection analysis results can be found in the Appendix of this report for reference. Page 8 N Fw E w w S p N.T S. 0 a0 0 IMMOKALEE ROAD p w J 0 o m VANDERBILT BEACH ROAD 332 z (312) 0 0 o [2921 - J 17% Q W GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD O 0° 332 w (296) in [2881 O0 1.9% PINE RIDGE ROAD LEGEND 000 CURRENT REMAINING CAPACITY (000) REMAINING CAPACITY AFTER AM PROJECT TRAFFIC [000) REMAINING CAPACITY AFTER PM PROJECT TRAFFIC 0.0% PROJECT IMPACT PERCENTAGE REMAINING CAPACITY ON Revised 512/07 TRANSPORTATION COUNTY ROADWAY NETWORK Figure 4 CONSULTANTS, INC. GOLDEN GATE BLVD @ SW 1st St CPD TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. Based on the results of the intersection analyses, no intersection improvements will be required to the site access intersection to Golden Gate Boulevard as a result of the added development traffic. 'Turn lane improvements will be required when the development traffic is added to the surrounding roadway network based on the Collier County Ordinance 93 -64. Turn lanes will be required on Golden Gate Boulevard at its intersection with the proposed right - in/right -out access driveway. Additionally. a westbound left turn lane will likely have to be constructed on Golden Gate Boulevard at the SW I" Street intersection after the addition of the development traffic. A southbound right turn lane on Wilson Boulevard may be required as a result of the added development traffic as well. however, the Specific turn lane improvements will be determined as a part of the SDP process when a more specific development scenario is available for the subject site. Vlll. CONCLUSION The proposed re- zoning of the Golden Gate Boulevard (il SW I" Street CPD in the southeast corner of the Golden Gate Boulevard /SW I" Street intersection within the Golden Gate Estates area of Collier County, Florida will not adversely impact the Collier County roadway network. The surrounding roadway network was analyzed based on the most recent Collier County Concurrency Management System. Based upon the analysis contained within this report, no roadway segments are shown to experience a significant impact as a result of the proposed re- zoning of the subject site. Golden Gate Boulevard is shown to have sufficient capacity after the addition of the traffic associated with the proposed Golden Gate Boulevard (& SW I" Street CPD. Therefore, no roadway link improvements will be required as a result of the proposed re- zoning of the subject site. Intersection analysis was performed at Golden (late Boulevard's intersection with the proposed right -in /right -out site access as a result of the proposed development_ Based on the results of the intersection analysis, all of the analyzed intersection approaches are shown to operate at LOS °C" or better when the development traffic is added to the Page 10 TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS, INC. surrounding roadway network. 'Therefore, no intersection improvements will be required as a result of the proposed Golden Gate Boulevard (a.) SW I" Street CPD. "Turn lane requirements are likely as a result of the proposed re- zoning of the subject site. However, the specific turn lane requirements will be reviewed at the SDP stage when a more specific development scenario is available for the subject site. Based on the analysis contained within this report, the re- zoning of the proposed Golden Gate Boulevard (() SW I" Street CPD will not adversely affect the future traffic conditions within the vicinity of the project site. All roadway links and intersections analyzed as a part of this report will operate acceptably when the development traffic is added to the surrounding roadway network. \k B001V03V 19', I Ukepm I (Im Page I I APPENDIX TABLE IA k(§ } §))) 2\ G■ /H / \ <) )\ \Cl) E/ ƒ « ) 0 fn ` y k ( \ ) < m - <�� w iw �k � (\ r e e{§ „ �S wz k ©ee CL z @ � ) 2 i) :» )) k\\ \} §) (( §) HCS CAPACITY ANALYSIS RIGHT -IN /RIGHT -OUT @ GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY Site Information General Information Project Description F0503.19 -10 - Golden Gate Blvd @ SW 1st St CPO Intersection Golden Gate @ Rt In /Rt Out nal st RLP ,gency /Co. m Transportation Consultants Jurisdiction Collier Count Date Performed 512 12007 nal sis Year Buildout I nal sis Time Period M Peak Hour R L Project Description F0503.19 -10 - Golden Gate Blvd @ SW 1st St CPO East/West Street: Golden Gate Boulevard North /South Street: Ri ht -in/Ri ht out Intersection Orientation: East -West Stud Period hrs : 0.25 Vehicle Volumes and Adjustments Major Street Movement Eastbound 1 2 3 Westbound 4 5 6 L T R L T R olume (veh /h) Peak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 2016 0.95 20 0.95 0.95 2038 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h) 0 2124 21 0 2145 0 Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 1 0 Median Type Raised curb RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 2 1 1 0 2 0 Configuration T R T Upstream Signal D 0 inor Street ovement Northbound 7 8 9 Southbound 11 12 folume L T R T R (veh /h aak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 10 0.95 0.95 0.95 Hourly Flow Rate, HFR veh /h) Percent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 10 0 g0'095 0 0 0 0 Percent Grade ( %) 0 0 Flared Approach N N Storage 0 0 RT Channelized 0 0 Lanes 0 0 1 0 0 Configuration R Delay, Queue Lencath, and Level of Service Approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound Movement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 Lane Configuration R v (veh /h) 10 C (m) (veh /h) 223 Vic 0.04 95% queue length 0.14 Control Delay (s /veh) 21.9 LOS C Approach Delay (s /veh) 21.9 proach LOS C ,yright 0 2005 University of Florida, All Rights Reserved HCS r TM Version 52 Generated'. 5/2/2007 11 02 AM TWO -WAY STOP CONTROL SUMMARY rr Q;#e 1nfnrmm4inn General inTorQlaLlorl 1 Intersection Golden Gate Rt In /Rt Out I[Analyst IRLP b /Co. TR Trans ortation Consultants urisdiction other County ,gency Performed 512 12007 nal sis Year uildout IDate nal sis Time Period jPm Peak Hour 2033 si tion F0503.19 -10 - Golden Oate diva m avv -151 of treet Golden Gate Boulevard INo Orientation: East - West jStL ovement 1 2 3 4 b b L T R L T R Aume veh/h) 2023 10 2033 yak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 2129 10 0 2140 0 eh/h) =_rcent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 edian Type Raised Curb T Channelized 0 0 anes 0 2 1 0 2 0 onfiguration T R T stream Signal D 0 linor Street Northbound Southbound lovement 7 8 9 10 11 12 L T R L T R olume (veh /h ) 35 :ak -Hour Factor, PHF 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 0.95 ourly Flow Rate, HFR 0 0 36 0 0 0 /eh/h) ercent Heavy Vehicles 0 0 0 0 0 0 ercent Grade ( %) 0 0 lared Approach N N Storage 0 0 IT Channelized 0 0 anes 0 0 1 0 0 0 :onfi uration R lelay, Queue Length, and Level of Service approach Eastbound Westbound Northbound Southbound lovement 1 4 7 8 9 10 11 12 ane Configuration R (veh /h) 36 (m) (veh /h) 222 /c 0.16 15% queue length 0.57 ;ontrol Delay (s /veh) 24.3 OS C 243 pproach Delay (s /veh) pproach LOS — I C ,,,dnm (d 9005 llniversily N Florida. All Ri0h15 Reserved HC34TV Version 52 Generated: 5/22007 11'03 AM TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS TRIP GENERATION EQUATIONS GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD (a-,) SW I" STREET CND ITE TRIP GENERATION REPORT, 7`I' EDITION Land Use Weekday AM Peak Hour Weekday PM Peak Hour Daily (2 -Nvay) Medical /Dental Office (LUC 720_ _1_2.48 (X) _ Ln (T) - 0.93 Ln (X) + 1.47 T - 40.89 (X) - 214.97 T - I)i s.X� 1,000sc.ft.ofGLA WILSON BOULEVARD and GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER EXPANSION EXHIBIT D PROJECT SUPPORT PETITION GROUP (COPIES OF ORIGINAL SIGNATURES, FOLLOWED BY TYPED LIST OF NAMES) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT APRIL 2007 This petition is signed in supportive "yes" response to the question, "Is there a need for additional commercial services at the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. and Wilson Blvd., on the site immediately adjacent to and west of the approved upcoming Walgreen's site ?" COPY - - Z'zeT 6e � a��/��/(v/1a —fib --- `1//9J��'£(/�2� �'°✓.- -- - - - -- //��%e./ �'�3- /ap1�a(/f4(.P_[ 1. 'd Uzi F _.14_* 0-7 nz' 5V'R - 7 -07 39I ifs A. N.i= -- 37w ev= - q 3>-L1 _ lip_ COPY This petition is signed in supportive "yes" response to the question, "Is there a need for additional commercial services at the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. and Wilson Blvd., on the site immediately adjacent to and west — of the approved upcoming Walgreen's site ?" 3t �(FR(S Su�+niaAr/._ 2 28 -07 toy ,JDcru 406 PR NM°LdS_ vw—D? _6 c �d - - 7- - 25S 3rd _ .(Cr�r - _� s� 34 cJ�,SSiCC1 _ �Q,✓1SttY%1_ _ . _3 -� [ � b'1.- -- -..1!� 3.7j' Avt- n1� . - NQ�cef' _ 35 i 3 . cats _vM— z q' ► Casey sry�,rV&f—q. YL sp e 41_ _ ` /07 6(3y AOkws ./antes 4Z- -- - - — - - 3� - -r,– — 3�o- z`L� -rt,✓ 44 . :�1 4 -.. . - COPY This petition is signed in supportive "yes" response to the question, "Is there a need for additional commercial services at the intersection of Golden Gate Blvd. and Wilson Blvd., on the site immediately adjacent to and west - of the approved upcoming Walgreen's site ?" .�122.._- - �«c� /& 62 -3 -4-07 7,T-4 lyl-Lsr S€ �• - .�""'• - a ? -_3 -a� 29Z/ pit ^�✓v ,$Ld 55 rrt �'��7 j b7v114 9.r. /h/ S l-ri I 6er-n e oat r tio� rrsS 3-3 -01 ?e� /v_.W. (Of / bOlx i 3- 3-co 349- sT s� COPY This petition is signed in a supportive "yes" response to the question, "Are additional commercial services needed in Golden Gate Estates ?" b: �J b� tor h lo' b' lay 7) 7t NAW Address Date Response o J�ti u loo Itl 2 ��la q �,/�� . J �s S 7 , & yoo ou l L,-UIR DAaW o /7 `/eS In l kG — OrG4-el1,La -,. G �S r E✓-- o/ -lFs Ob -lv 2 -.2,9 7 390 i l ST J4:' a ',2Y -07 5 F F s�30 S�Ci2 G—rzQS L r -Nr'o �'-c l\-oos y fS -20A1 kr, O3 )01 ul- X2,5. #tav 3t00 y5l z)-7 Q.i l' ro, i 411�;q l�Gy S� �ya��mi rti, G — d d L11 \ k k ; ■ j k } § oz _ { ) { 2 \ t-6 iz ) ) 9 \ | F \ ` k \ § ! q \ # k k \ K * < k % e & ° ! � ) ■ ZZ-og e ) k k` & __ —! § k k§ _ t ! \ k ) — \ w LT 2 0 n 0 0 r 0 0 r 0 0 n 0 0 n 0 0 n 0 0 n 0 0 r 0 0 n 0 0 r 0 0 n 0 0 r 0 0 n 0 0 r 0 0 r 0 0 n 0 0 r 0 0 n 0 0 n 0 0 n 0 0 n 0 0 m U) m ¢> yp l7 fO $ to in V n 3 rn inN t° N m z N °i �m c ° F O 3 rn N 3 z m > mn fh 3 z n m N m o c E a O ❑ m '� z n 3 rn rn 0 n 3 m > m to N w z > M 1°O aN_a w z > M m pN_ w z > fr9 t�O N w z > M 0 N_ w z > M n N w z > v N m > a m Q N 3 z > r m A C y E Y C 'dog m o m > N m 5 D m c U G °m C o J m > g N y m y > N m y c y U o c m N N N N V N N N f- N r N N- N to N O f`9 (7 N t7 N th i7 0 m n [h W t7 tm N O V V N O d N n C m SD Ol m 3 a m 2 n m m L O N 2m O C m U m T m E N 0 M3 c� D10 m C O N 3 N m U Z m N A U m E E 0 U m C O O a m c m m r A A n r n r r A r r n n n n n n r r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 $ 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 m �i 5 L " Yj d ' z > Q L @ m N Q m (A L S m N L N N m N � N w z N L w m > Q ' N L `n N L m m w fn M w N � Z i Q m f0 L N pp t0 tD N O �O O O N M N N O ep QQ M N n A m OD [D h O O) O Of O V M M M N n < N to N M M O N A C N 3 m o F o I m m ZE4 m � h _ 3 ° m U =_ E 9 o m 3 o ml Q` m al = •c o a v o =_ E b -U' M O tp n m Ol O N M V N �O r ¢t Of O R < < V V N i0 10 uJ i0 �O N N O N tp t0 r O 0 ... N L U W n O N N d 7'j r O n O n O n O n O r O r O r O r O n O A O r O n O r O r O n O A O A O n O n O r p0 9 a a a mG�' � m r r - r - r r - r - r C 16 N O C tr 9 9 9 Q C .q N N N N v i m v m o N aa Q N m m N N M > m N z m 7 3 > a 3 h r z r z < 3 p N 3 p 0 r 3 U) n 3 U) 7 w U 7 o c < m Q� a m E w E E z z m c 0 r m m F m O O E c C O 22 m m L r m IL m O m x m C m O m 2 .L N c u m m } > m _ m m C n - - in m m A m m m O � % en o m N m WILSON BOULEVARD and GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER EXPANSION EXHIBIT E PROJECT SUPPORT PETITION GROUP2 (COPIES OF ORIGINAL SIGNATURES, FOLLOWED BY TYPED LIST OF NAMES) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT APRIL 2007 0 U O O ^ .5 ti Ta y U � y3 G o 0 G U 8 ❑ U 'd 0 0. w b � W O v y " 3 c y o N y d b o m w T 7 +O' O h C •y a« rz L 0 F o O b 00 � •F �b a o �' t7 w 0 b 0 'o �6 N ry^ lip E 7Z3- C vg � f -Tj C 6 � V 3 h V1 CC N d " ti . cvn ry �Ty11 9� tFenY to M 3 �.G v L r 6 <�O E C'` A �• T t p J �o ci EP s�o M V I _. u @ � 24 K-L v VI as Z6 s !� f r 9 In n_ in e N tin- g Nn j u a m a 0 U 0 U N y fn N .Vi z3 Oi m C 4) O U b > O 0 0. b � 40. O y " 3 O m y O O 0 a c o� h 0 'h 0 0 .'y � O a= =3 9b A9 ti 'O m o � %+ 0 N b as H F o S s j4 e E C e LL i 1] j i ci g •L J q f, f3 vi A N T M a� Q `• J o f � m E c a, Is0 4 cK v (10 00 n ti ZO o .9 rl s cc L^ i' S r f ^s 1p tl� a rflr JJ N - At 1Y _ _ V S E � ! z° , Y a O U K 0 N N tNt� U W �3 N � c U � O U O D b N � O O 0. A b � A L y. w O b � 3 c ,d �g N � O W _T 0 � o G o N y O N^ C O �3 G F b � d b C m O Z: N N b a o N o -Z5 0 IL m C V 9 a i 9 Q C m S h� 9 QN E a Q m E w E`m 9 Z m 0 r m m' E m 2 S c U ik >- a O U j kk .( \ §/ )] E!\ ]$ )d \j \/ \� \} \]- f\ \% \\ ƒi )\ � \\ >4 0 u k k § / ? \ \ ? 1 ` e ®� �� ®© | \ % z C,57 f 2 3 / k 7 /s� /mot /�•* � �} k ! 7 < \ ƒ \ n o k $ 4 � | LA \ ;. 9 k. _ >4 0 u C v N �v N N r3 N �c N 9 N ! N io N N m N N o N N n N � n N N n N n N N a N N io N co N N m 3 0 0 0 e `o m m 0 c v w 9 Q c a i N N n < V MOM �i v LLI Z M m INp �j n f7 w N < lh w No w w z m W N to m 3 h w w Z N 3 t�•f [•1 w e�+l y m < Z �tf N v t� H YI E w E E s m E °o 5 Y 0 3 E v C N E YS 0 cli Y m D U L m u S = C L m E C d L v E E �? $ € 1N�pp U E 3 Y s 2 c c `c C E V O a fi O m E m c 2 Y m o w v G El z zw `o Z C 0 RIM l•1 C& � < fcDSp W N O m Owl M I!{ O CP N l�•I �(I V A M @�a a 1t�� th l� m N � t�lApp O N � N A NNN f� � N 1Lb V 0 O f Oi N Oi N 01 N T N Of N Ol N O1 N O N N N OI N Ol N O1 N N N 01 N OI N O N Oi N N N N N z' c f01 m r$ J H 31; J U .g ry O F- m C V N c Y 5 U W a m L E S ii O U E U m Y O 0 a N W 0 2 0 y m Y 'o Q -d W r2 9 m •I O O n O O) O N m v VI O �: O m N ( ) ) d \ d ( ) ) d d ) ( § ) ( 12 ( ° ( ; k ( ( . ! � \ / \ / § | . * % t k ; e � ` k k k m - j 9 k B / § n r / E 33 \ \ k \ \ \ B P4. S / , ( 2 } f \ \ } \ \ \ ( § 2 2§ 2§ R§ ¥ 2 % ! ; § \ k Lij k� ! k o , a ! j !_ �} } \& m \ a a c j) j k e Q a@ a k a Al R� g R k w m m I; a § ) ) ( d ) § ) § ( k LLI W= \ w # \ \ @ « ) 9 k 55 \ « t § \ f % � g ■ ( § ■ e ; � WILSON BOULEVARD and GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER EXPANSION EXHIBIT F PROJECT SUPPORT PETITION GROUP 3 (COPIES OF ORIGINAL SIGNATURES, FOLLOWED BY TYPED LIST OF NAMES) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT APRIL 2007 T F O y U U H N ^ U � U v .0 o� C � O C4 b � {� W w � b� � 3 � •c w U O O m C O iL U ^� O T b � O O h b � O b b0 C � O Y Ci •N b p' O h F o d A O 3 0 LL Iz Q m a m a D Q N ti? C J w z a ` 1 c 1 m ' lZ U � 3 J- W � rn M c0 I � f \� �J 4' - L / �I M �•S� � M� M V Q, U a a 0 U 0 U N N N C C' U U by �3 � c V U O b N � O U w O b U � � 3 �o C b0 o A c.? OD x E o � N N O .. O 0 �3 C � b • �, 0.1 � Y F o d 0 3 O 9 w omi v Q eA Z h� d s b C� O O ti co C J Q m w to .A y U a J cr r la � g L7 1 a 0 U 0 U U y i. N^ C �•. U U d0 is C U N O U � 7 O �p N C O � U C � w O b � " 3 c L � U 0 C 7C o m c 0 y � o .N a� a .. c� o G C >r o� . C � b Q' O F o a 0 V i i� OEM a 0 V C v w r 0 0 N co v r 0 0 N co a n 0 0 N �o v r 0 0 N m v n o 0 N c`o a r O 0 N <o v r o 0 N co v r 0 0 N co v n 0 0 N <o v r 0 0 N m e r 0 0 N co v r 0 0 N co c n 0 0 N co a n 0 0 N �o a n o 0 N co a r O 0 N m a n o 0 N io < r 0 0 N C v n 0 0 N n a n 0 0 N n v r o 0 N � v r O 0 N r a c `m m R 0 c W m 0 W d 9 V Q c a Q y O Z z d Q N O M N r d M O z m ¢ V N Z > O W M v ¢ M M N w O a N N N Q N Q w W M N N (O M O Ol r m< m O M W M h O) M o 0 N O (O r M 0 w z; N M M N M z N 'C c0 N w O N N 0 M z d N m 00 N 0 m z d N N N M 0 M z m N N M a r N m O m O N E o U m O Ec Y C L W W � 9 Q W � L N W ;O m d C C LU J m N d a O Z C O t N p N M V ry M f� O) L N OD O) N M M V c0 m M N W M N N M N V M OD 0�p M � D7 pMppp M V 0) M M M m M t0 M M O V N N M �D a n W a n W O tp O V O M W N H rn M N rn M N rn M N rn M N m M N rn M N rn M N rn M N m M N rn M N m M N m M N m M N rn M N rn M N rn M N m M N rn M N rn M N rn M N rn M N m M N N Z U O O J Q .O O LL w U L Z J 01 2 U 0 LL 0 U N N E H n J IL a w W W @ 0 C O O V U Z N M V iO w r c0 W O 71 N M V M O ti T O N N N n 0 0 N a n 0 0 N v r 0 0 N a n 0 0 N a r 0 0 N a r o 0 N a r O 0 N a n o 0 N v n 0 0 N v r 0 0 N a n 0 0 N v r 0 0 N a n 0 0 N v n 0 0 N v n 0 0 N v r 0 0 N e r 0 0 N a n 0 0 N v n 0 0 N a r 0 0 N e r 0 0 N a n 0 0 N v N yN_y d ¢ 3 m = o m a a N fn Z > ¢ c� Z > ¢ y a W Z to N W z_ Z ( N r fn th Z (n N > a N > ¢ m 3 M Z O > Z N O W O ¢ L N N .92 U in z M N �fi < S i0 M O� N M M lO i0 M N O N V N O �O Y tp O a O O O O n N M t0 M tD M M M M O BOO O O V OD ? M � L6 7 N_ 4 M aN0 d V N M M N O N OD ap �O N aOD O aD O1 Ol O O) O� Of O� O) m m O O) OI Of O) m W O) Of W Ol N N v y N O O m N d E m ` J y O IL y a'j O F O J N a A m pC C l0 Y E L V d .O J A N U) d w m m c O N N O m L N J S N a y m J m U w awl t4r, d Y y O J N L fan N N N N N N N M M M M M Al M M M M M < V V I O < WILSON BOULEVARD and GOLDEN GATE BOULEVARD NEIGHBORHOOD CENTER EXPANSION EXHIBIT G LETTER OF SUPPORT FROM DR. ROBERT TOBER GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN AMENDMENT APRIL 2007 11AR-M -2 097 21:32 Mal: March 4, 2007 Department of land Planning Collier County, Florida Dear Department of Land Planning, Collier County, Florida: ro:2S9597602e P.111 I am writing this letter an behalf of Dr. Robert McGann, M.D., retired cardiovascular surgeon. I met and joined Dr. McGann some 15 years ago when he started his first urgent care center in Naples near the corner of Immokelce and 41. 1 have been u partner with him on two of his property sites where he operates urgent care minters. He is now planning on building a full- service urgent care center in eastern Golden Gate. Specifically, he would like to build on the SW comer of Golden Gate Blvd and Wilson Blvd. This would require rezoning this comer to commercial in order for Dr. McGann (and myself) to bring a complete medical facility to that location that would have laboratory and X -ray capability and offer urgent and family medical cave to all residents. young and old, in that area. We plan to have pediatricians as well as family and emergency physicians in that lot:ntiam. That: arc no medical facilities at this time anywhere on Golden Gate Blvd. The closest medical facility would probably be Physician's Regional Medical Center Pine Ridge or Collier Blvd. At any rate, Dr. McGann already operates 3 urgent care centers (soon to be four); all of which provide outstanding urgent care, family care, pediatric care and internal medicine care to a large variety of people. 1 write this letter to you to formally request your considering rezoning this corner for build -out of an urgent care center, physician's offices and an imaging and laboratory center. Please do not hesitate to contact me if I can be of further assistance or information to yon. Sincerely. Robert Boyd Taber, M-, FACEP Medical Director Neighborhood Health Clinic Medical Director Collier County EIV1S Medical Director NCH Wound Healing Center & Hyperbaric Oxygen Uail 6400 Davis Blvd., Suite 104 Naples, Florida 34112 239 - 403 - 2600- Telepbone 239403- 2602 -Fax 239 450 -5375 -Cell GOLDEN GATE ESTATES COMMERCIAL INF[LL SUBDISTRICT APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN SECTION 29 TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH RANGE 26 EAST PREPARED FOR: Colonnade on Santa Barbara, LLC 2950 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 16 Naples, Florida 34103 Athina Kyritsis, Manager Colonnade on Santa Barbara, LLC 2950 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 16 Naples, Florida 34103 Phone: 239-649-4805 Fax: 239 - 649 -7709 January 12, 2007 Michele R. Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Community Development and Environmental Services Department of Comprehensive Planning 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 RE: Petition #CP- 2005 -5, Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Dear Ms. Mosca: Attached please find the completed application including the information and / or documentation that you requested to complete the sufficiency portion of the above mentioned petition including: • Legal instrument identifying Mr. Marvin Smith as sole owner of El80ft of Tract 98, Unit 30. • Revised application reflecting the current authorized "agent" • Original Letters of Authorization for all represented parties. • Twenty five copies of complete application on 3 -hole punch, as requested • Neighborhood Information Meeting set for February 1, 2007, 5:30 PM, at Golden Gate Community Center. Thanks for all of your assistance in putting this together. Yours truly, 1" Paul Schwartz VP Development Colonnade Development Group for Colonnade on Santa Barbara LLC Q. GRADY MINOR & ASSOCIATES, P.A. Civil Engineers ■ Land Surveyors ■ Planners ■ Landscape Architects .,,ARK W. MINOR P.E. NORMAN J, TREBILCOCK, A.I.C.P., P.E. C. DEAN SMITH, P.E. DAVID W. SCHMITT, P.E. MICHAEL J. DELATE, P.E. MICHAEL T. HERRERA, P.E. GARY J. GASPERINI, P.E. WILSON A. GARCIA, P.E. July 27, 2006 Michele R. Mosca, AICP Principal Planner Community Development and Environmental Services Department of Comprehensive Planning 2800 Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida 34104 D. WAYNE ARNOLD, A.I.C.P. STEPHEN V. BURGESS, P.S.M. JUAN A. ARAQUE, P.S.M. KEITH A. STEPHENSON, P.S.M. KENNETH W. PAHUTSKI ALAN V. ROSEMAN JEFFREY S. CURL, ASLA, RLA IVY WYLIE, P.E. RE: Petition #CP- 2005 -5, Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Dear Ms. Mosca: Pursuant to Paragraph B.3. of Resolution #97 -431, this letter is to inform you that the referenced Application is deemed insufficient. The following items need to be corrected, addressed, or added: 1 General Information I.A: Add Athina Kyritsis as an applicant. Response: Applicant has been changed to Athina Kyritsis. 2 Disclosure of Interest Information II.0 (Leon R. Cirou, TR): Provide a list of beneficiaries with the percentage of interest. Response: The list of beneficiaries for Leon R. Cirou, TR has been provided. 3 Description of Property 1111: Provide 2000 TAZ No. (TAZ 193) Response: The 2000 TAZ No. has been provided. 4 Type of Request IV C: Revise to read, From: "Estates Designation, Estates -Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict" To: "Estates Designation, Estates -Mixed Use District, Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict" (239) 947 -1144 ■ FAX (239) 947 -0375 ■ Web Site: www.gradyminor.com 3800 Via Del Rey ■ Bonita Springs, Florida 34134 -7569 EB 0005151 ■ LB 0005151 ■ LC 26000266 AM . Mr. Michele Mosca, AICP Re: Petition #CP- 2005 -5, Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Sufficiency Response July 27, 2006 Page 2 Response: The application has been revised to read, from: "Estates Designation, Estates -Mixed Use District, Residential Estates Subdistrict" To: "Estates Designation, Estates -Mixed Use District, Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict'. 5 Exhibit V.A.1. V.A.2, and V.A.3: Map is illegible; relocate the "zoning informational blocks' so that properties are identifiable. (Arrows may be used in combination with these blocks to identify the zoning within the required radius.) Response: The map has been revised to relocate the "zoning information blocks" so that the properties are identifiable. 6. Exhibit V.B: Map must include existing Future Land Use Designations (Estates -Mixed Use District, Residential Subdistrict and Estates -Mixed Use District, G.G. Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict) and respective acreages for all properties located within the project boundary as well as Future Land Use designations for surrounding properties. Response: The map has been revised to include Future Land Use Designations and acreages. 7 Exhibits V C 1& V C 2 (Comments provided by Environmental Planning Staff): Provide a listed species survey, which includes: date, time, and etc. of listed species inspection; and, the specific species surveyed on the site. The applicant must also include a list of species that are expected to utilize the site. Response: A listed species report prepared by Boylan Environmental Consultants has been provided. 8. Exhibit V.C.3: Required correspondence from the Florida Department of State, Division of Historical Resources, was not provided with submittal; please provide with re- submittal. Response: The required letter from the Florida Division of Historical Resources is attached. 9. Exhibit V.D.5: Request to expand the G.G. E. Commercial Infill Subdistrict to add: 11.6 acres (total 18 acres); 80,000 sq. ft. of C-1, C-2, & C-3 uses (total 115,000 sq. ft.); and residential uses at a maximum density of 15 DU /A. MM60725RL (GGMPA).doc Page 2 of 4 GGMPA Mr. Michele Mosca, AICP Re: Petition #CP- 2005 -5, Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Sufficiency Response July 27, 2006 Page 3 Market area: Study Area 1 of the Golden Gate Area Commercial Land Use Demand Report, prepared in January 2002, by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Dept. • Existing Study Area does not include lands added to the Master Plan in 2002, 2003, and 2004 that allow commercial and /or mixed use development e.g. Santa Barbara Commercial Subdistrict, Downtown Center Commercial Subdistrict, Collier Boulevard Commercial Subdistrict, and Collier Boulevard /Pine Ridge Rd. Neighborhood Center; revise inventory and analysis accordingly (requires addition of eligible lands, reduction of residential lands, pop. analysis, and, etc.). Response: A new Market Analysis has been prepared by Fraser S Mohlke Associates incorporated, which addresses the noted deficiencies. 10 Public Facilities V E 1 a -f. Exhibit V. E: • Provide project commencement and build -out dates • Provide current information on all public facilities (refer to 2005 AUIR). • Remove "N /A" on the GMPA application for items a. and b. Response: A revised Public Facilities Analysis has been prepared which addresses the 2005 AVIR and establishes project commencement and buildout dates. 11 Public Facilities V.E.3: Required information was not submitted; provide with re- submittal. Response: The Public Facilities Analysis has been revised to address schools, fire and EMS. 12 Supplemental Information V.G.4. Provide a deed that identifies Marvin E. Smith as the sole owner of the Ell 80 ft of Tract 98, Unit 30. Response: The application has been revised to reflect the correct ownership of the E180 ft of Tract 98, Unit 30 as Marvin E. Smith and Eva m. Smith, consistent with the deed previously submitted. 13 Supplemental Information V.G.5. Provide a Notarized Letter of Authorization for Zannos Grekos. Response: The application has been revised to add Athina Kyritsis and remove Zannos Grekos as the applicant. 14 General Comments: MM60725RL (GGMPA).doc Page 3 of 4 GGMPA Mr. Michele Mosca, AICP Re: Petition #CP- 2005 -5, Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Sufficiency Response July 27, 2006 Page 4 • Exhibits reference 10 DU /A and 15 DU /A as the maximum density allowed by the GMPA; revise to reflect the actual density requested. Response: Exhibit V.E. has been revised to reflect the proposed density of 15du /acre. Should you have any questions cc: Zannos Grekos Richard D. Yovanovich Charles Mohlke „ianQp faPl free to contact me at 947 -1144. MM60725RL (GGMPA).doc Page 4 of 4 GGMPA _ APPLICATION FOR A REQUEST TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN PETITION NUMBER PRE - APPLICATION CONFERENCE DATE DATE SUFFICIENT PLANNER ASSIGNED: COMMISSION DISTRICT: [ABOVE TO BE COMPLETED BY STAFF] DATE RECEIVED This application, with all required supplemental data and information, must be completed and accompanied by the appropriate fee, and returned to the Comprehensive Planning Section, 2800 North Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida 34104. Phone: (239) 403 -2300; Fax: (239) 643 6869. The application must be reviewed by staff for sufficiency within 30 calendar days following the filing deadline before it will be processed and advertised for public hearing. The applicant will be notified, in writing, of the sufficiency determination. If insufficient, the applicant will have 30 days to remedy the deficiencies. For additional information on the processing of the application, see Resolution 97-431 (attached). If you have any questions, please contact the Comprehensive -Planning Section at 239403 -2300. M GENERAL INFORMATION A. Name of Applicant(s): Athina Kvritsis Company: Colonnade on Santa Barbara, LLC Mailing Address: 2950 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 16 City: Naples State: Florida Zip Code: 34103 Phone Number: (239) 649 -4805 Fax Number: (239) 649 -7709 B. Name of Agent: * Athina Kvritsis E -Mail: paulgcdgnaples.com *THIS WILL BE THE PERSON CONTACTED FOR ALL BUSINESS RELATED TO THE PETITION 02/2002 Name of Owner(s) of Record: Colonnade on Santa Barbara, LLC Mailing Address: 2950 Tamiami Trail North Suite 16 Naples Florida 34103 Owners Representative: Paul Schwartz VP of Development Phone: (239) 649 -4805 Fax: (239) 649 -7709 E -Mail: paul cdgnaples.com D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. ,OSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each, and provide one copy of the Articles of Incorporation, or other documentation, to verify the signer of this petition has the authority to do so. Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock Zannos Grekos 50% Athina L KYritsis 50% Colonnade on Santa Barbara, LLC 2950 Tamiami Trail North Suite 16 Naples Florida 34103 C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest_ Name and Address Percentage of Interest 02/2002 D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contact purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners, and provide one copy of the executed contract. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership or trust. Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired (2003) leased O: Terms of lease yrs /mos. If Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates:_, or anticipated closing date H. NOTE: Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final ublic hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 02/2002 C. Name of Owner(s) of Record Beverly J Gatti Mailing Address 5731 Golden Gate Parkway City Naples _ State FL _ Zip Code 34116 -7460 _ D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Beverly J. Gatti _ 100% 5731 Golden Gate Parkway Naples Florida 34116 -7460 B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each, and provide one copy of the Articles of Incorporation, or other documentation, to verify the signer of this petition has the authority to do so. Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest 02/2002 D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and /or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership E. I£ there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contact purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners, and provide one copy of the executed contract. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership or trust. Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired ( ) leased ( ): Terms of lease yrs /mos. If Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option term nates:, or anticipated closing date H. NOTE: Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the applicant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 02/2002 C. Name of Owner(s) of Record Leon R Cirou TR Mailing Address 2925 Santa Barbara Boulevard City Naples State FL Zip Code 34116 -7429 D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each, and provide one copy of the Articles of Incorporation, or other documentation, to verify the signer of this petition has the authority to do so. Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest Steven W. Cirou 25% Richard Michael Cirou 25% Maria Lynn Robinson 25% Theresa A. Gumpert 25% 2925 Santa Barbara Boulevard, Naples Florida 2 02/2002 D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contact purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners, and provide one copy of the executed contract. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership or trust. Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired (__) leased O: Terms of lease __ yrs /mos. If Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates:_, or anticipated closing date H. NOTE: Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the ap licant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 02/2002 C. Name of Owner(s) of Record Marvin E. Smith and Eva M. Smith Mailing Address 5715 Golden Gate Parkway City Naples State FL Zip Code 34116 -7460 D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, architects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Marvin E. Smith & Eva M. Smith 100% 5715 Golden Gate Parkway Naples Florida 34116 -7460 B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each, and provide one copy of the Articles of Incorporation, or other documentation, to verify the signer of this petition has the authority to do so. Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest 2 02/2002 D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contact purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners, and provide one copy of the executed contract. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership or trust. Name and Address — G. Date subject property acquired (_) leased ( ): Terms of lease yrs /mos. If Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates:_, or anticipated closing date H. NOTE: Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final ublic hearing, it is the responsibility of the ap licant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 02/2002 C. Name of Owner(s) of Record Steven W. and Talitha C. E. Cirou Mailing Address 2915 Santa Barbara Boulevard _ City Naples _ State FL Zip Code 34116 -7429 D. Name, Address and Qualifications of additional planners, arclvtects, engineers, environmental consultants and other professionals providing information contained in this application. DISCLOSURE OF INTEREST INFORMATION: A. If the property is owned fee simple by an INDIVIDUAL, tenancy by the entirety, tenancy in common, or joint tenancy, list all parties with an ownership interest as well as the percentage of such interest. (Use additional sheets if necessary). Name and Address Percentage of Ownership Steven and Talita Cirou 100% 2915 Santa Barbara Boulevard Naples Florida 34116 B. If the property is owned by a CORPORATION, list the officers and stockholders and the percentage of stock owned by each, and provide one copy of the Articles of Incorporation, or other documentation, to verify the signer of this petition has the authority to do so. Name and Address, and Office Percentage of Stock C. If the property is in the name of a TRUSTEE, list the beneficiaries of the trust with the percentage of interest. Name and Address Percentage of Interest 02/2002 D. If the property is in the name of a GENERAL or LIMITED PARTNERSHIP, list the name of the general and/or limited partners. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership E. If there is a CONTRACT FOR PURCHASE, with an individual or individuals, a Corporation, Trustee, or a Partnership, list the names of the contact purchasers below, including the officers, stockholders, beneficiaries, or partners, and provide one copy of the executed contract. Name and Address Percentage of Ownership F. If any contingency clause or contract terms involve additional parties, list all individuals or officers, if a corporation, partnership or trust. Name and Address G. Date subject property acquired ( ) leased ( ): Terms of lease yrs /mos. If Petitioner has option to buy, indicate date of option: and date option terminates:_, or anticipated closing date H. NOTE: Should any changes of ownership or changes in contracts for purchase occur subsequent to the date of application, but prior to the date of the final public hearing, it is the responsibility of the ap licant, or agent on his behalf, to submit a supplemental disclosure of interest form. 02/2002 III. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY A. Legal Description Golden Gate Est Unit 30S 150 FT of TR 111 Unit 30N 180 FT of TR 111 Unit 30W 150 FT of TR 98 and Unit 30E 180 FT of TR 98 Unit 30 TR 112 B. Section: 29 Township: 49 Range: 26 C. Tax I.D. Number (Folio #) 38169960008 38169920006 38168840006 38168800004 and D. General Location Northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara E. Planning Community Golden Gate F.TAZ 193 G. Size in Acres 18t H. Zoning E Estates and CPUD — Colonades at Santa Barbara Present Future Land Use Map Designation (s) E Estates and Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict IV TYPE OF REQUEST A. Growth Management Plan Element(s) OR Sub - Element(s) to be amended: Future Land Use Immokalee Area Master Plan Transportation Coastal & Conservation Intergovernmental Coord. Sanitary Sewer Drainage ✓ Golden Gate Area Master Plan Capital Improvement _Housing Recreation & Open Space Potable Water Solid Waste Natural Groundwater Aquifer B. Amend Page(s) 44 and 45 of the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Element As Follows: (Use Cress t aughs to identify language to be deleted; Use Underline to identify language to be added). Attach additional pages if necessary: Please see attached Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict text. C. Amend Future Land Use Map(s) designation, FROM: Estates Designation, Estates — Mixed Use District Residential Estates Subdistrict District, Subdistrict TO: Estates Designation, Estates — Mixed Use District Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict District, Subdistrict [If new District and/or Sub - district proposed, include Future Land Use Map with legend depicting it]. D. Amend other Map(s) and Exhibits as follows: (Name & Page #) Man #5 Golden Gate Area Master Plan 02/2002 E. Describe additional changes requested: V REQUIRED INFORMATION Note: All Aerials must be at a scale of no smaller than 1" = 400'. At least one copy reduced to 8Y: x 11 shall be provided of all aerials and /or maps. A. LAND USE 1. X Provide general location map showing surrounding developments (PUD, DRI'S, existing zoning) with subject property outlined. 2. X Provide most recent aerial of site showing subject boundaries, source, and date. 3. X Provide a map and summary table of existing land use and zoning within a radius of 500 feet from boundaries of subject property. B. FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION 1. X Provide map of existing Future Land Use Designation(s) of subject property and adjacent lands, with acreage totals for each land use designation on the subject property. C. ENVIRONMENTAL Provide most recent aerial and summary table of acreage of native habitats and soils occurring on site. HABITAT IDENTIFICATION MUST BE CONSISTENT WITH THE FDOT - FLORIDA LAND USE, COVER AND FORMS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM (FLUCCS CODE). NOTE: THIS MAY BE INDICATED ON SAME AERIAL AS THE LAND USE AERIAL IN "A" ABOVE. Provide a summary table of Federal (US Fish & Wildlife Service) and State (Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission) listed plant and animal species known to occur on the site and/or known to inhabit biological communities similar to the site (e.g. panther or black bear range, avian rookery, bird migratory route, etc.) 3. Identify historic and/or archaeological sites on the subject property. Provide copy of County's Historical/Archaeological Probability Map and correspondence from Florida Department of State. D. GROWTH MANAGEMENT Reference 9J- 11.006, F.A.C. and Collier County's Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2 (Copies attached). INSERT "Y" FOR YES OR "N" FOR NO IN RESPONSE TO THE FOLLOWING: 1. 1 NO Is the proposed amendment located in an Area of Critical State Concern? (Reference 9J- 11.006(1)(a)Ta,F.A.C.) If so, identify area located in ACSC. 2. NO Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed 6 02/2002 Development of Regional Impact pursuant to Chapter 380, F.S.? 3. NO Is the proposed amendment directly related to a proposed Small Scale Development Activity pursuant to Subsection 1633187(1)(c), F.S.? (Reference 9J- 11.006(I)(a)7.b, F.A.C.) 4. NO Does the proposed amendment create a significant impact in population which is defined as a potential increase in County wide population by more than 5% of population projections? (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2). If yes, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. 5. YES Does the proposed land use cause an increase in density and/or intensity to the uses permitted in a specific land use designation and district/subdistrict identified (commercial, industrial, etc.), or is the proposed land use a new land use designation or district /subdistrict? (Reference Rule 9J- 5.006(5)F.A.C.). If so, provide data and analysis to support the suitability of land for the proposed use, and compatibility of use with surrounding land uses, and as it concerns protection of environmentally sensitive land, ground water and natural resources. (Reference Rule 9J- 1.007, F.A.C.). E. PUBLIC FACILITIES Provide the existing adopted Level of Service Standard (LOS, and document the impact the proposed change will have on that Standard, for each of the following public facilities: a) X Potable Water b) X Sanitary Sewer c) X Arterial & Collector Roads: Name of specific road and LOS Golden Gate Parkway Santa Barbara Boulevard d) X Drainage e) X Solid Waste f) N/A Parks: Community and Regional If the proposed amendment involves an increase in residential density, or an increase in intensity for commercial and/or industrial development that would cause the LOS for public facilities to fall below the adopted LOS, indicate mitigation measures being proposed in conjunction with the proposed amendment. (Reference Capital Improvement Element Policy 1.1.2 and 1.1.5). 2. X Provide a map showing the location of existing services and public facilities that will serve the subject property (i.e. water, sewer, fire protection, police protection, schools, and emergency medical services. 3. X Document proposed services and public facilities, identify provider, and describe the effect the proposed change will have on schools, fire protection and emergency medical services. 7 02/2002 F. OTHER Identify the following areas relating to the subject property: 1. X Flood zone based on Flood Insurance Rate Map data (FIRM) (Community Number 120067 Panel Number 392D and 415D. June 3 1986). 2. N/A Location of wellfields and cones of influence, if applicable. (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). 3. N/A Traffic Congestion Boundary, if applicable. 4. N/A Coastal Management Boundary, if applicable. 5. N/A High Noise Contours (65 LDN or higher) surrounding the Naples Airport, if applicable (Identified on Collier County Zoning Maps). G. SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION 1. X $16,700.00 non - refundable filing fee, made payable to the Board of County Commissioners, due at time of submittal. 2. $9,000.00 non - refundable filing fee for a Small Scale Amendment, made payable to the Board of County Commissioners, due at time of submittal. 3. Plus Legal Advertisement Costs (Your portion determined by number of petitions and divided accordingly. 4. X Proof of ownership (Copy of deed). 5. X Notarized Letter of Authorization if Agent is not the Owner (see attached form). 6. X 1 Original and 5 complete, signed applications with all attachments, including maps, at time of submittal. After sufficiency is completed, 15 copies of the complete application will be required. Additional copies may be required. * Maps, aerials, sketches shall include: North arrow; name and location of principal roadways; shall be at scale of 1" = 400' or at a scale as determined during the pre - application meeting; identification of the subject site; legend or key, if applicable. All oversized documents and attachments must be folded so as to fit into a legal -size folder. For all oversized exhibits, at least one copy must be submitted at 8 -/z x 11 inches. All exhibits and attachments to the petition must include a title and exhibit 4 or letter, and must be referenced in the petition. 02/2002 ELI IT I'll-A.. LEGAL DESCRIPTION GOLDEN GATE ESTATES COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT III.A. LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT 112, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT NO. 30 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 58, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA Err THE SOUTH 150 FEET OF TRACT 111, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT NO. 30 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 58, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA F-raci THE NORTH 180 FEET OF TRACT 111, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT NO. 30 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 58, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE WEST 150 FEET OF TRACT 98, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT NO. 30 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 58, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AND THE EAST 180 FEET OF TRACT 98, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES, UNIT NO.30 ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 58, OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA CONTAINING 18 ACRES, MORE OR LESS. EXHIBIT IV-.Bo PROFOSED, FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT TEXT EXHIBIT IV.B COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN Amend Text on Pages 44 and 45 of the GOLDEN GATE MASTER PLAN (VI) 7) Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict This subdistrict consists of two infill areas. The two areas are located at the northwest corner of Collier Boulevard and Green Boulevard and at the northwest corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. Due to the existing zoning and land use pattern in proximity to the Estates Commercial In -fill Subdistrict (see Map 5) and the need to ensure adequate development standards to buffer adjacent land uses, commercial uses shall be permitted under the following criteria: a) Commercial uses shall be limited to: • Low intensity commercial uses that are compatible with both residential and intermediate commercial uses, in order to provide for small scale shopping and personal needs, and • Intermediate commercial to provide for a wider variety of goods and services in areas that have a higher degree of automobile traffic. These uses shall be similar to C -1, C -2, or C -3 zoning districts outlined in the Collier County Land Development Code (Ordinance 91 -102), adopted October 30, 1991. b) Rezones shall be encouraged in the form of a Planned Unit Development (there shall be no minimum acreage requirement for PUD rezones except for the requirement that all requests for rezoning must be at least forty thousand (40,000) square feet in area unless the proposed rezone is an extension of an existing zoning district consistent with the Golden Gate Area Master Plan). C) Projects within this Subdistrict shall make provisions for shared parking arrangements with adjoining commercial developments when appropriate. d) Driveways and curb cuts for projects within this Subdistrict shall be consolidated with adjoining commercial developments. e) Access to projects shall not be permitted from Collier Boulevard. f) Any project located within this subdistrict at the northwest corner of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard, less and except an easement for Santa Barbara Boulevard right -of -way, shall be subject to the following additional development restrictions: 1. The site shall be limited to thirty five -one hundred and fifteen thousand (35115,000) square feet of commercial building area. 2. Land uses shall be restricted to intermediate commercial and offices -enty, and mixed use residential projects. Residential density shall be limited to 15 units per acre. 3. All principal structures shall be required to have a minimum setback of one hundred4100)fift 50 feet from the project's northern boundary. 4. The northern seventy- fivefi� (7 -550) feet of the western - sixty -(60) - percent -of the site shall be a green area (open space area). It shall be utilized for only water management facilities, landscape buffers, and similar uses. 5. The western - s+xty -{60)- percent - cif -the-site shall have an outdoor pedestrian friendly patio(s), that total at least five hundred (500) square feet in area and incorporate a minimum of: benches or seating areas for at least twelve (12) persons, and vegetative shading, and a waterfall or water feature of at least one hundred (100) square feet in area, and brick pavers. 6. A twenty -five (25) foot wide landscaped strip shall be provided along the entire frontage of both Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard. 7. A minimum buffer of thirty -five (35) feet in width shall be provided along the project's western and northern boundary a alaRg4he easteR4 f44y r O) �.f fifty (50) feet buffer m�'vvT�a: 4i- width- shah- be- previded- a"- the- uvesterrrs+ty (60}persent of -the prejerts nG�thern beuRdwy. Where feasible, existing native vegetation shall be retained within these buffers along the project's western and northern boundaries. These buffers shall be supplemented with Oak or Mahogany trees planted a maximum of twenty (20) feet apart in a staggered manner; and a seven (7) foot wall, fence, or hedge that will, within two (2) years of planting, grow to a minimum height of seven (7) feet and be a minimum of ninety -five (95) percent opaque. 8. All buildings shall have tile or metal roofs, or decorative parapet walls above the roofline, and buildings shall be finished in light subdued colors except for decorative trim. 9. Building heights shall be limited to one three (43) -story and a maximum of thirty -five (35) feet. 10. All lighting facilities shall be architecturally designed, and limited to a height of twenty -five (25) feet. Such lighting facilities shall be shielded from neighboring residential land uses. 4� there shat4-beaa agress< 3r- egrESSOn -Santa�abara- Boutevard,- EXHIBITS VAs I I VA.2, VA.3 AND VE.2 LAND USE 0 z a z a ^?> N C7 a — >w= _ Z O I m w > �q8 5 Et Z2 U �,inw QOZQ� RUN W I O Inez aOz aj Z 41 w3o Ja >QUttW 'm Oo�a�jn W O 0 z c � � Z 3 o r n C J W W Ige '8J) Q lvoo9 w Z O Q M Q F U Z W N „ w Cl) ~ zW U Z W W J :2W W J w � W �Q o o Y Z N �0 V) z Q U a = Z _ a a� > Q � � 3or ZLL �Z ~o maZ 0 Q ice Nvoo� nia vaveave visas Z U x0 = J �7 N U W J J �W Z 0 T- o� W < sa - ivisa3iNl n n O W Q O o U tIVII W J a a� U :fig 5. _ as 41 ��g�g6 cEe a � e o.=�N,N„ c Ige '8J) 0 oa MnVaJ -311 lvoo9 S g'a a „ gg. W' I 0 w OJ Fa 3z GULF OF MEXICO i g "e¢ „ gg. W' I 0 w OJ Fa 3z GULF OF MEXICO �W< o a a4� � E { ek 5 G a,. w y5 = [ L 1 E armour r,. e E Y 6 „ gg. W' I 0 w OJ Fa 3z GULF OF MEXICO oam �s o� zee Z�q Y 3 6 u C mgo Q b 388 8 >j �" 8 I 2 {{ g/ M //f / ƒ k }t} § /!r § \ \� 2 {{ g/ M //f / ƒ � \ ,( ° I a w » w _ i o _! U. J� ° ££J ,\ 2/\ - f x O_ •2 " — ( Ld k# , _..� s ~ } \ % ® J / /:� yz � ¥ aO mamma . 2: gz; : . La S n }2 % . max:• 7 \: •§ =7 : § } :\2/ |$ 2 {{ g/ M //f / ƒ 4 t E)` % r g V,B# URE L USE MAP 2 GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE.. LAND USE MAP NAPI I S IMMOKA, F! A0AO GOLDEN GATE OIL WELL L ROAD PAY 'INS ,ITT o' EXHIBIT V.B zo RANDALL BOULEVARD PROPOSED FUTURE RANDALL BOULEVARD couuERaAI. suaolsTRlcl SAND CO MERCIA BOULEVARD rh 18± ACRES m > > o A a AD > r w AR °a I- IS ° rc > o HSTA F[ _ t�5 OR Ba aE RD n LEGEND ILFORD USE IRAN I PS MIXED ORE _ _urvo -- a 4N1 AREA ANENOEL' A, 2S, I'll F BARB fl a CURIA Z > GA,DFA .An A.I.Sll PA.'. 11, 11 1 o aNCxpE4 - Ocl00CU 21. 19 9 A; -LED' G.G. PKWY. cV As aF P , I n a y' .0 E I sVR STRIfT ¢ — BARBARA wm '1' 11 - SUBJECT SITE a m E c s'AJSY «:' o f AIFI55SRIOi IN A.,. A�zm ?N 0LN' N c RA xa EIIAL AiAo OuuERnn� Su0 sla1�T Z P NR 2 00`OB[a I ,DNA, ISIDIA A f0 E SUBDIS INIC DAVIS BOULEVARD RR9. uD 2Ufln ti AR 81 NO .1, - LOG PARED By GRAPHICS AND I...`NF1 $DPV11aI SLC71aN GE V - AL 'SIDDI GDIAMCR SII9VISR%; — -- MB;R V00'; IIFI ISIl .F, ncr w- zuo.., vvl. DA r ;i.00.. R 28 E I R 27 E N L FIE R,o� Row S ® w Eo usE suews?ticl N vy .� wL wssQar'. R[s oENr A. . DENSITY DAN, vy �; PILL, s N ERC GE AC: GLIDER 5 DES , ,El 1. IFUNII .11 COMPREHENSIVE A G B [ EEO 1 D T GOALS . EC V ICIES D SE DG OESCh [IDM1 E,IDA N FA PLAN �I NAPLLG IMMOKALEF ROAD - WE ti cnnrts IllN Fn suao¢mmT PC VANDERBILT PAY BEACH ROAD _ w T o m I � — — AS 0 PINT RIDGE RD. 1u - ,E MAP 2 GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE.. LAND USE MAP NAPI I S IMMOKA, F! A0AO GOLDEN GATE OIL WELL L ROAD PAY 'INS ,ITT o' EXHIBIT V.B zo RANDALL BOULEVARD PROPOSED FUTURE RANDALL BOULEVARD couuERaAI. suaolsTRlcl SAND CO MERCIA BOULEVARD rh 18± ACRES m > > o A a AD > r w AR °a I- IS ° rc > o HSTA F[ _ t�5 OR Ba aE RD n ILFORD USE IRAN I PS MIXED ORE _ _urvo -- a O PROPARTABOT ANENOEL' A, 2S, I'll F BARB fl CURIA Z > A.I.Sll PA.'. 11, 11 1 o aNCxpE4 - Ocl00CU 21. 19 9 G.G. PKWY. ANCNOEO VRIL 11 HAS a y' o ¢ AMENDED FEBRUARY 23 DRIP - SUBJECT SITE a IN IN A.,. A�zm ?N 0LN' N c A. S. FAIL lrvlrty Tl[NBEh IO. xa EIIAL AiAo OuuERnn� Su0 sla1�T Z P NR 2 00`OB[a nnCrvpCTI [I + .4 .On DAVIS BOULEVARD RR9. uD 2Ufln ti AR 81 NO .1, - LOG PARED By GRAPHICS AND I...`NF1 $DPV11aI SLC71aN — -- C09-UN VEI P:11, ANA Evvumrvnl:NTnI SIJiV ICCS mvISIM IIFI ISIl .F, ncr w- zuo.., vvl. DA r ;i.00.. R 28 E I R 27 E N L m S N vy L> vy �; MAP 2 GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE.. LAND USE MAP NAPI I S IMMOKA, F! A0AO GOLDEN GATE OIL WELL L ROAD PAY 'INS ,ITT o' EXHIBIT V.B zo RANDALL BOULEVARD PROPOSED FUTURE RANDALL BOULEVARD couuERaAI. suaolsTRlcl SAND CO MERCIA BOULEVARD rh 18± ACRES m > > o A a AD > r w AR °a I- IS ° rc > o HSTA F[ _ t�5 OR Ba R 28E coIDEN All ILFORD USE IRAN I _ _urvo -- A.1.11B MAI 11 1111 ANENOEL' A, 2S, I'll A.I.Sll PA.'. 11, 11 1 aNCxpE4 - Ocl00CU 21. 19 9 ANCNOEO VRIL 11 HAS y' AMENDED FEBRUARY 23 DRIP 1{ AMENDED A. I F A.,. A�zm ?N A. S. FAIL lrvlrty Tl[NBEh IO. P NR 2 00`OB[a nnCrvpCTI [I + .4 .On RR9. uD 2Ufln ti NC A 2 20P NO .1, - LOG PARED By GRAPHICS AND I...`NF1 $DPV11aI SLC71aN — -- C09-UN VEI P:11, ANA Evvumrvnl:NTnI SIJiV ICCS mvISIM IIFI ISIl .F, ncr w- zuo.., vvl. DA r ;i.00.. R 28 E I R 27 E R 28E MAP 2 a 0 VANDLRdILI 9FAC11 ROAD AT m o GOLDEN GATE is RGE o PIN ID RD VlMITE BLVD. '] I'E RICE Po LEGEND = mPE .ARD All MAE - Y ° —� — IALIA AA`.Ax A> Ni RIA i , .x„ — SUREIIAT ET AMENDED PN I'll 0 . PKWY "Cl A, C ACI,� cExItR EE � All 11 IIAL 11 I'll ® G OE G [ cNF P R o s o -a PPP outs., a SL IEGT SITE a t roM E rn " 111 Spit j All m I —Jp '. EA 1 o r IRA c riwb cEP3P I E LB Ai TLC CRG4 Szd%, ll DAVL: HOUCEVARD ANCxRC[ nnan�l] 2nol P 84 ..- AN1 A" C ia. AIA Ll .iI.IEI .Ai COMMC L.'Ii1=�IPC N m All ND` 1 11 11111 11 S ARD � E Da ai n. ALL AA CAGE, A, BIYSIRC' CL IAI I A iL C'-1 'III III I,TN \ All R A:. E VII] Al _E ICES OIV STEIN . 11 „P 1 I . IL I rt:;I noi;Ewr,E l 51 c R 27 E Un. (' ' Es,EES D usRESDEN nv All I�I ' - s S r;� Dos AlIRCHANCE E.C. E L s e . 1A1I AAIS(AAN LA- 0 E S REGIS 10 AAAI III IN LL LE, LATE EA AADTFA I NAPLES IMMOKA—I ROAD DIIA w¢vPxEe — ml 5ueolsmlcr At MAP 2 a 0 VANDLRdILI 9FAC11 ROAD AT m o GOLDEN GATE is RGE o PIN ID RD VlMITE BLVD. '] I'E RICE Po mPE .ARD All MAE - Y ° IL D�sRIC — IALIA AA`.Ax A> f' — SUREIIAT ET AMENDED PN I'll 0 . PKWY r A, C tt � All 11 IIAL 11 I'll a SL IEGT SITE a t W YERST AIC j All m I —Jp I � DAVL: HOUCEVARD ANCxRC[ nnan�l] 2nol P 84 ..- AN1 A" C T 2Gl N m All ND` 1 11 11111 11 S ALL AA IAI I A iL C'-1 'III III I,TN S GOLDEN GATE AREA FUTURE LAND USE 1VIAh NAI°LLI 'MMOKAI 1 f ROAF AECLEE ?A ll mPE .ARD All MAE E AMENDED AAI 11 111 1 ITY 11, e, AMENDED PN I'll ANI All 11 IIAL 11 I'll j All I � ANCxRC[ nnan�l] 2nol ..- AN1 A" C T 2Gl All ND` 1 11 11111 11 I'll_ ALL IAI I A iL C'-1 'III III I,TN \ E D EN1 ALL E VII] Al _E ICES OIV STEIN . 11 „P 1 I . IL _..... R 26 E R 27 E 011 WELL ROAD RANDAIL BOULEVARD �11 NOULEVARD ERCIAL SUBDISTRICT a 'o LEE a I o R28E EXHIBIT V.B EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE MAP GOLDEN GATE ESTATES 11.2± ACRES INFILL COMMERCIA 6.8± ACRES an MAP 5 GOLDEN GATE URBAN COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT AND GOLDEN GATE ESTATES COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA N U QJ6 W=m y.Jr m Q <U WN 10o S GU.v. 0 s o� FN 'W^5 °n< a o �oo0 od :wo �n aso m� a� aow � aZm W Q R�Vo 0 Z W J a ¢V Q00 0 m N N Z yl WFJ 00W UW? a� U� K 1- ;Om Z N WQJ J OW-Z U�—Z IIIIN 1 111 1 11111111 =1111�i1 1 _ qty• - sill I MmAl"o, �_ __� N U QJ6 W=m y.Jr m Q <U WN 10o S GU.v. 0 s o� FN 'W^5 °n< a o �oo0 od :wo �n aso m� a� aow � aZm W Q R�Vo 0 Z W J a ¢V Q00 0 m N N Z yl WFJ 00W UW? a� U� K 1- ;Om Z N WQJ J OW-Z U�—Z B ITS V C I, V C -, 2, AND V.C3 ENVIRONMENTALANALYSIS GOLDEN GATE ESTATES COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT EXHIBIT V.C.1, Vegetation Discussion The subject parcel was inspected and a vegetation map prepared to reflect existing site conditions. The mapping is according to the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCCS) and is attached. The following is a description of the communities found: FLUCCS 110, Residential This category embraces the areas that include house dwelling on large lots. Typically this includes less than two units per acres. Landscape planting and native Florida Slash Pine are present in these areas. Soils have been disturbed or filled, and replanted with Bahia, St.Augustine or other lawn grasses. FLUCCS 411, Pine Flatwoods Slash pine and occasional cypress in the canopy with scattered saw palmetto in the groundcover dominate this community. Other vegetation includes grapevine, poison ivy, beauty berry, smilax, Caesar weed, love vine, cabbage palm, and penny royal. Vegetation is typical of upland communities and no hydrology or hydrologic indicators were present. FLUCCS 422, Brazilian Pepper This area of the property was previously disturbed and now contains a monoculture of Brazilian Pepper. This exotic species dominates the mid -story with little or no groundcover present in this area. Although this area is underlain by hydric soils, no hydrology was present in this community. FLUCCS 621d, Drained Cypress Wetlands Cypress are common in the canopy of this small community. Midstory was dominated by Brazilian Pepper. Other vegetation consisted of a mix of Dahoon holly, cabbage palm, myrsine, wild coffee, and beauty berry. The groundcover included poison ivy, smilax, grapevine, Caesar weed, swamp fem, and oyster plant. Although some vegetation is associated with wetlands communities, the lack of hydrology has resulted in the successional species that are more common in upland hammocks and disturbed sites. No hydrologic indicators were observed in this area. FLUCCS 740, Disturbed Lands This area of the property was previously cleared for the Santa Barbara Blvd. right of way. It is dominated by turf grasses. It is anticipated neither SFWMD nor ACOE will consider this community as jurisdictional wetlands. FLUCCS 814, Roads This area includes the existing right of way for Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara. i I O or LC LU ww O vy ri m I Q a w ti w 0 0 m k N A m c W &y oWC�� m DO g 3� R U U U U U U W m m m m m m V NN N�Omi Qn n 00.-0 C m co N m y h p c c U '0 2 C m m a W U 9 a m m. m Lu W c E�='o J Q d 41 p 0 ac U W 2 4 a i ti U U J a Ci 0] �f N 11 U W Z Q Et a z 0 0 lb 0 w ro U N Q a m J 0 Z x W mmm m m m U V N N N W W y C m 3 0 b n d N C PL 2 W mmm° tp D,a (9 h y m N G D W W m. clo U co U � Uo� -Naov C) Z a IL Q U) a- 51 D p = o � U o m F m M iQ CG a� W Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Section 29; Township 49 S; Range 26 E Collier County, Florida Protected Species Survey Exhibit V.C.2 Consultants, Inc Wetland & Wildlife Surveys, ij Envirm & Impact Assessment 11000 Metro Parkway, Suite 4 Fort Myers, Florida, 33966 Phone:(239) 418 -0671 Fax:(239) 418 -0672 June 30, 2006 Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict INTRODUCTION Two environmental scientists from Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc conducted a field investigation on the 18.02± acre property on June 27, 2006. The purpose of the field investigation was to identify the potential of listed (endangered, threatened, etc.) species inhabiting the site that are regulated by the US Fish & Wildlife Service (FWS) and the Florida Fish & Wildlife Conservation Commission. The site is located in portions of Section 29, Township 49 South, Range 26 East, in Collier County, Florida. Specifically, it is situated at the northwest corner of the intersection of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard in Naples. 1 Rop" Locath 11 METHODOLOGY ti vH 2'1N Gi SN z> Car The survey was comprised of a several step process. First, vegetation communities or land -uses on the study area were delineated on an aerial photograph using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System ( FLUCFCS). Secondly, the FLUCFCS codes were cross - referenced with a Potential Protected Species List. This list names the species that have a probability of occurring within a particular FLUCFCS community; the table at end of the report lists the FLUCFCS communities found on the parcel and the corresponding species that have a probability of occurring in them. Lastly, these FLUCFCS communities were searched with parallel, overlapping transects for signs of listed species. Page 2 of 5 A A C Rop" Locath 11 METHODOLOGY ti vH 2'1N Gi SN z> Car The survey was comprised of a several step process. First, vegetation communities or land -uses on the study area were delineated on an aerial photograph using the Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System ( FLUCFCS). Secondly, the FLUCFCS codes were cross - referenced with a Potential Protected Species List. This list names the species that have a probability of occurring within a particular FLUCFCS community; the table at end of the report lists the FLUCFCS communities found on the parcel and the corresponding species that have a probability of occurring in them. Lastly, these FLUCFCS communities were searched with parallel, overlapping transects for signs of listed species. Page 2 of 5 Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict SURVEY DATE AND WEATHER CONDITIONS Survey Date Survey Time Weather Conditions 6/27/06 Mid morning Partly cloudy with light winds and temperatures in the 80's Vegetation Vegetation communities were mapped in the field according to the system in use by the agencies, the Florida Land Use Cover and Forms Classification System (FLUCFCS). Listed below are the vegetation communities or land -uses identified on the site. The following descriptions correspond to the mappings on the attached FLUCFCS map. See Florida Land Use, Cover and Forms Classification System (Department of Transportation 1985) for definitions. FLUCFCS CODES/Description Residential, Low Density (FLUCFCS Code 110) These residential areas are occupied by single - family home sites and account for 7.42± acres of the property. Typically this includes less than two units per acre. Landscape planting and native slash pine is present in these areas. Soils have been disturbed or filled, and replanted with Bahia, St.Augustine, or other lawn grasses. Pine Flatwoods (FLUCFCS Code 411) This upland habitat occupies 7.24± acres of the property. Slash pine and occasional cypress in the canopy with scattered saw palmetto in the groundcover dominate this community. Other vegetation includes grapevine, poison ivy, beauty berry, smilax, Caesar weed, love vine, cabbage palm, and penny royal. Brazilian Pepper (FLUCFCS Code 422) This upland community type occupies 0.25+ acres of the property. This area of the property was previously disturbed and now contains a monoculture of Brazilian Pepper. This exotic species dominates the mid -story with little or no groundcover present in this area. Cvuress, Drained (FLUCFCS Code 621d) This wetland community type occupies 0.26± acres of the property. Cypress are common in the canopy of this small community. This midstory is dominated by Brazilian Pepper. Other vegetation consists of a mix of Dahoon holly, cabbage palm, myrsine, wild coffee, and beauty berry. The groundcover includes poison ivy, smilax, grapevine, Caesar weed, swamp fem, and oyster plant. Disturbed Land (FLUCFCS Code 740) This upland area occupies 1.86± acres of the property. This area of the property was previously cleared for the Santa Barbara Blvd. right of way. It is dominated by common weeds and turf grasses. Page 3 of 5 Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Roads (FLUCFCS Code 814) This area includes portions of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Boulevard and occupies 0.99± acres of the property. SPECIES PRESENCE The various listed species that may occur in the FLUCFCS communities have been tabulated on the attached table. During our field survey for protected species on the property, we did not observe any protected species or signs thereof. No nest -like structures or tree cavities were noted. No tortoise burrows were identified. DISCUSSION The lack of tortoise burrows is likely due to the fragmented and isolated nature of the forested portions of the property and the abundance of leaf litter and shading from the canopy. It appears unlikely fox squirrels would utilize the property. In addition, due the lack of corridors or contiguous habitat of the property with off -site areas, it is not anticipated that other listed species would occupy the property. The nearby roads also create a barrier and a hazard to other animals. Because of the disturbed nature of portions of the site and the surrounding land -uses, it is unlikely that this site supports or would provide habitat for protected species. Community locations were estimated and drawn by using a non - rectified aerial with approximate property boundaries, hence their location, aerial extent, and acreage is approximate. Page 4 of 5 Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Table. Collier County Protected Species Survey Summary Protected species having the potential to occur in the corresponding FLUCFCS community or land -types with corresponding field survey results. FLUCFCS Code /Area Potential Protected Species % Surveyed Species Present Species Absent Density (Acre) Visibility (Feet) 110 NONE 20 Beautiful Pawpaw 90 X 20 Big Cypress Fox Squirrel 90 X 20 Eastern Indigo Snake 90 X 20 Fakahatchee Burmannia 90 X 20 Florida Black Bear 90 X 20 Florida Coontie 90 X 20 411 Florida Panther 90 X 20 Gopher Frog 90 X 20 Gopher Tortoise 90 X 20 Red - Cockaded Woodpecker 90 X 20 Satinleaf 90 X 20 Southeastern American Kestrel 90 X 20 Twisted Air Plant 90 X 20 422 NONE 20 American Alligator 90 X 20 Everglades Mink 90 X 20 Florida Black Bear 90 X 20 Florida Panther 90 X 20 Gopher Frog 90 X 20 621 Limpkin 90 X 20 Little Blue Heron 90 X 20 Snowy Egret 90 X 20 Tricolored Heron 90 X 20 Wood Stork 90 X 20 740 Burrowing Owl 90 X 20 Gopher Tortoise 90 X 20 814 NONE Page 5 of 5 P � N E O I� n 6 _ _ O L 0 ao -- I N U I� - - - -- - - - -- w U) G m - - -J I L N Z d co •� ^ �J w cn a a z O N C QF- m W m - - - - -� I W w a 0 -- - - - - - -- I W W N o N iy W N m m N m N O �' p I U V N N N m m l N N m IIC U � U Vui e_ a � Q N 2 K d T m a a N fW.� vUi y m N .��, o z m N m W ; m °o q J o a m Q Q� Q N 00� V W V a � J O N N OV e Q�p N � DIVISIONS OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE MEMBER OF THE FLORIDA CABINET O®re of d" Seaehry State Board � �"P�oo" Offireof Inematlrnl Relations Troaeo of tlm InteAmmeaTaA Pad Oivldmo(EkcOau I* r*ddWfcMPuaa, orvW000fCWmeaAfein Flodde Land and Water AdfrAs" Ooamila, SIRKBond Oividm of Flletoefcel Reeouxm Dlv6bn of Bad i4mae Olvai of IAooaing dInfinevllon Service DeperlmeNdaeveae Dlvbion of I.IaaWng Depntaento/lawlWorrevomt OepeMnntef HlgInny S.My and Moan VoWd. oiW]m of AdvdNehstive Seaica FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE Katherine Harris Secretary of State DIVISION OF HISTORICAL RESOURCES May 4, 1999 Mr. Jeremy Sterk Boylan Environmental Consultants, Inc. 11000 Metro Parkway, Suite 4 Fort Myers, Florida 33912 RE: DHR Project File No. 992457 Cultural Resource Assessment Request USACOE Nationwide Permit Application Golden Gate Parkway / Santa Barbara Parcel Collier County, Florida Dear Mr. Sterk: In accordance with the procedures contained in 36 C.F.R, Part 800 ( "Protection of Historic Properties "), we have reviewed the referenced project for possible impact to historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. The authority for this procedure is the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (Public Law 89 -665), as amended. A review of the Florida Master Site File indicates that no significant archaeological or historical sites are recorded for or likely to be present within the project area. Furthermore, because of the project location and/or nature it is unlikely that any such sites will be affected. Therefore, it is the opinion of this office that the proposed project will have no effect on historic properties listed, or eligible for listing, in the National Register of Historic Places. If you have any questions concerning our comments, please contact Scott Edwards, Historic Preservation Planner, at 850 -487 -2333 or 800- 847 -7278. Your interest in protecting Florida's historic properties is appreciated. Sincerely, Geor$e W. Percy, Director Division of Historical Resources and GWP/Ese State Iiistoric Preservation Officer RA.GrayBuilding a 500 South Bronough Street a Tallahassee,F19432399 -0250 • http: / /www.Rheiitage.com O Director's Office O Archaeological Research toric Preservation O Historical Museums .(850) 488 -1480 . FAX: 488 -3355 (850) 487 -2299 . FAX 414-2207 (850) 487 -2333 • FAX: 97104% (850) 488-1484 . PAX: 921 -2503 O Historic Pensacola Preservation Board O Palm Beach ReR�onal Office O St Au�aahn¢ Re @Deal Office O 'Rmpa Regional Office (850)595-5985 . FAX-595-5989 (561) 279 -1475 SAX: 279 -1476 (904) 825-504.5. FAX 82 -5044 (813) 2727F . PAX: 2T1 -7.W §E } § k\ \§ \\ \ � y�4 . . ,.. � � % | §$ � | � < - !! i ! | | | | || \ . . . . . . . \ � . . ,.. � � < - EXHIBITS VD-5 LAND USE D , A T A ID A, A I X S-S 11, GOLDEN GATE ESTATES COMMERCIAL INFILL SUBDISTRICT APPLICATION TO AMEND THE COLLIER COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN EXHIBIT V.D.5 Land Use Data and Analysis Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict The proposed Growth Management Plan Amendment will have the effect of expanding the existing Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict to include four additional adjacent properties consisting of 11.6± acres. The subdistrict comprises approximately 6.8± acres and is zoned CPUD, Colonades at Santa Barbara. A maximum of 35,000 square feet of professional and medical office uses are permitted within the subdistrict. The expanded subdistrict will include a total of 18± acres. The properties proposed for inclusion in the subdistrict are Tract 111 and Tract 98, Golden Gate Estates, Unit 30. These two tracts are developed with four single - family residences. The Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict, while located in an area designated as Golden Gate Estates on the Golden Gate Master Plan, Future Land Use Map, is adjacent to the unincorporated area known as Golden Gate City. The property is also located at the intersection of two arterial roadways (Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway), which the intersection is being modified to be expanded to accommodate up to 6 -lanes of through traffic movements and dual turning lanes. These intersection improvements document the existing and anticipated increasing population and vehicular trips within this geographic area of Collier County. A new interchange is under construction at Golden Gate Parkway and 1 -75, which will have the potential effect of redistributing vehicular trips in the County and increasing the volume of automobiles at the intersection of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway. The proposed expansion of the subdistrict represents an appropriate land use change. The intersection, and the properties immediately surrounding the intersection have changed in their character since the original inception of the subdistrict. The property will now have frontage on two 6 -lane arterial road segments, designed to accommodate increasing traffic associated with continued population growth and changing vehicular patters due to the opening of the 1 -75 interchange on Golden Gate Parkway. All four quadrants of this major intersection presently are designated or developed with non - residential land uses. The County has recognized that low- density residential development is not compatible in and around this intersection and the land use pattern is reflective of the incompatible relationship of low density single family with heavily traveled roadways. F.\IOB \GREKOS GMPA (GGMPA)\APPLICAT1WEXH VD5 - Data and Analysis.doc The expanded subdistrict boundary will be of a size to appropriately support a mix of retail, personal service, office and mixed -use residential development. In January 2002, Collier County prepared a report titled "Golden Gate Area Commercial Land Use Demand ". The report was prepared as part of the update to the Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy. Study areas were created and the existing commercial uses were documented and projections of future demand were made through the year 2010. The Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict was included in Study Area 1, of the Golden Gate Area Commercial Land Use Demand report. Table 4., Existing Commercial Acreage and Forecast Requirements, noted that in 2001, approximately 233± acres of commercial zoning existed. The 2010 projected demand for commercial uses in the study area was 242.9± acres, which represents a projected deficit of 9.71 acres in the year 2010. A copy of the Golden Gate Area Commercial Land Use Demand report has been included as supporting data and analysis. In further support of the justification for expansion of the boundaries and allowable uses within the subdistrict, Feasinomics, Inc. previously prepared an analysis of available commercial properties by location and size of parcel. This analysis was utilized in support of the designation of the existing subdistrict. A copy of this report by Feasinomics, Inc. has also been attached. The expanded subdistrict to include a total of 18± acres represents an assemblage of land sized appropriately to support a mix of retail, office and mixed use residential land uses. The subdistrict's frontage on each of the two future 6 -lane roadways will be approximately 1,200 feet on Golden Gate Parkway and 650 feet on Santa Barbara Boulevard. Both frontage dimensions will permit safe and efficient ingress and egress to the subdistrict. The proposed maximum amount of commercial square feet within the subdistrict represents approximately 7,000 square feet per acre of gross leasable commercial space. This is a reasonably low intensity of commercial space per acre which will permit appropriate buffers and transition to adjacent Golden Gate Estate properties. F:VOB \GREKOS GMPA (GGMPA)\APPLICATION \EXH VD5 - Data and Analysis.doc GOLDEN GATE AREA COMMERCIAL LAND USE DEMAND Prepared for: The Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy Prepared By: Collier County Comprehensive Planning Department January 2002 I. Introduction The Golden Gate area continues to experience tremendous growth in -line with countywide trends. The population growth rate in the Naples metropolitan area (MSA) was ranked second in the nation (up 65.3 %) from 1990 to 2000 (Census 2000). For purposes of adding more detail and maintaining consistency with prior studies, the Golden Gate Area is subdivided into four sub- areas as depicted in Map 1. These sub -areas, or study areas, are of substantial size to represent a traditional market trade area. As evidenced in Table 1, the Golden Gate area actually experienced population growth (up 72.97c) in excess of the already stellar countywide rate. T tiro t anri C',nlden ('.are Srudv Area Ponulation Growth Gtao `raphy 1990 2000 % Change Study Area 1 19,134 27,719 44.87% Study Area 2 2,647 5,278 99.40% Study Area 3 1,919 7,640 298.12% Study Area 4 376 1000 165.96% Study Areas Total 24,076 41,637 72.94% Collier Counry Total 152,099 251,377 65.27% Source: U.S. Census Bureau 2000 In accordance with basic economic theory, changes in number of consumers and/or income can shift (i.e. increase or decrease) demand for normal goods and services '. The proliferation of new households in the Golden Gate area represents an apparent increase in consumer demand for the variety of goods and services households typically consume. Moreover, increases in income also manifest as positive shifts in demand for normal goods and services. The purpose of this restudy is to examine the demand for commercial space in the Golden Gate Area community in consideration of projected future growth. The groundwork for this restudy is contained in a previous Comprehensive Planning Staff report entitled Analysis of the Golden Gate Area Commercial Land Use Needs, October 1996. That study was adopted on April 9, 1996, by the Board of County Commissioners as part of the Evaluation and Appraisal Report for the Golden Gate Area Master Plan. The methodology used in the original study was adapted from an earlier 1988 study completed by Reynolds, Smith and Hills (RS &H) in conjunction with the Countywide Growth Management Plan. As with the original (1996) study, there are three primary objectives for this study: Document the existing commercial space within the Golden Gate area Project future demand for commercial space, and Discuss an appropriate spatial distribution and allocation of commercial acreage. In addition to the above, a brief theoretical background is also presented. Moreover, consideration is also given to methodology assumptions and the satisfaction of consumer demand from retailers located outside the subject study areas. 1 Reference any intermediate level Economics Textbook's discussion of Demand. I 0 PREPARES - COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES DIVISION RLE: GGMP -9.DWG DATE: 12/01 MAP 1 GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER COMMERCIAL STUDY AREAS PLAN COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA HENDRY CO. .7 II. Background Information The basis for anticipating an increase in demand for commercial space in the study area is rather straightforward. Assuming a typical consumer purchases a composite set of goods at a retail store, the full cost of a shopping trip entails more than just store purchases. The consumer also incurs transportation and time costs. Moreover, lengthy trips can produce a substantial amount of disutility in the form of traffic congestion and other nuisance costs2. The effect of including all costs, in excess of the retail purchase, results in an increasing cost to consumers located at greater distances from the retail center3. Indeed, transportation costs are typically assumed to increase at a constant rate (e.g. $0.20 /mile) with distance. An increase in population within a given geographic area will influence both the consumer and retailer in at least two important ways. The retailer will see the level of demand for store products increase per unit of area. Demand for store products increase and storeowners see a corresponding increase in revenue. Crowded store aisles and parking lots are two outward signs of this growth. The primary spatial affect on the retailer is that normal returns can now be earned with a smaller primary trade area. Hence, this growth eventually creates incentive for retailers to build new stores given increased business activity and capacity constraints at existing stores. This growth in population driven demand likewise affects the consumer. First, market forces become favorable for a price increase. An increase in demand for a product or service places upward pressure on its price, all else equal. Although this is a standard function of any price system, the extent of this occurrence will vary according to product. Whether or not product prices increase, the consumer will likely see the full costs of a shopping trip rise under a scenario of rapid population growth. In other words, even if the rise in purchase price remains negligible, time and nuisance costs would increase with congestion and distance. Hence, the market forces that compel retailers to build new stores also benefits the consumer by providing closer shopping venues and helping alleviate upward pressure on prices. Although not explicitly addressed in this study, job creation is another substantial benefit associated with the construction and operation of new retail outlets. III. Study Methodology and Data The methodology used in this study is consistent with the approach used in the 1996 Staff study and the countywide 1988 RS &H study. These studies utilize a standard approach to approximate the amount of supportable commercial space in an area 4. Population and income growth projections drive the methodology by yielding projected increases in consumer retail expenditures in an area. Projected consumer retail expenditures are derived by multiplying total area income by the share of personal income spent on retail purchases. A sales per square foot (SPF) parameter is then divided into consumer retail expenditures to arrive at the amount of retail square feet that could be supported by the population. Another parameter, the floor area ratio (FAR), is then used to arrive at a corresponding acreage requirement for the supportable retail 2 These type effects can be considered an externality. An externality exists when the welfare of a household depends not only on his or her activities, but also on the activities under the control of other consumers. 3 A detailed theoretical and graphical description of retail market areas can be found in: Heilbrun, James. Urban Economics and Public Policy. 1987. St. Martin's Press, Inc. See Retail Development in Growing Communities. How Much Retail Can Our Town Support ?. Issue 37, September 1999. Center for Community Economic Development, University of Wisconsin Extension. square footage estimate. Although this approach contains a number of intermediate steps, the process is fully rooted in projections of population and income growth along with the SPF and FAR parameters. A schematic outlining the data hierarchy and methodology is depicted in Figure 1. Figure 1 provides a summary of both the flow and calculations involved in the forecast procedure used in this restudy. Additional insight is provided in the next section describing source data. Data Notes and Descriptions Population Projections (POP) — Population projections are based on Comprehensive Planning forecasts for each of the four study areas. Forecasts of future population were based on high range for five years and medium range countywide population projections developed by the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). BEBR's countywide totals were disaggregated based on the share of growth in each respective study area in accordance with 2000 Census Data. All forecasts reflect permanent population figures due to the unique nature of the area. More specifically, the area presents relatively few opportunities for seasonal residents and is commonly associated with providing workforce housing. Per Capita Income (PCP — Income data are adapted from 2001 forecasts of personal income by Woods and Poole Economics, Inc. The differential between per capita income estimates at the County level and the Census Tracts making up the study areas is used to adjust forecasts5. Where Census tracts and study areas overlapped, a weighted average procedure was used. As suspected, countywide per capita income levels overestimate study area income levels. Per capita income in the four study areas were 35% to 40% less than the countywide level. These findings support the common recognition of the NGGE as an area of relative affordability. Woods and Poole, Inc. per capita income projections are defined according to Department of Commerce, Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) estimates of personal income 6. Per capita income forecasts are presented in "constant" 1996 dollars'. Persons Per Dwelling Unit (PPDU) — Calculated for each study area in the 2000 base year. Defined as the total population divided by the number of dwelling units for each study area. These estimates are based on 2000 Census data and Comprehensive planning projections. PPDU is assumed to hold steady in the forecasts beyond 2000. PPDU serves to project the number of dwelling units from population forecasts. Dwelling Units Forecast (DU) — Defined as forecast population divided by persons per dwelling unit. For each forecast time period, DU is given by: DU= POP PPDU 5 Income data from the 2000 Census were not yet available at the tract and block level. Hence, 1990 Census income data were used to calculate differentials between study area income and countywide income. 6 "Personal income (and income per capita) data used by Woods & Poole are usually much higher than money income data used by the Census because money income excludes some forms of income (Woods & Poole Economic, Inc. 2001 State Profile, Pg. 28) ". 7 Constant dollars measure the real change in income by taking inflation into account. By adjusting for the general rise in price levels (i.e. inflation), an increase in income measures the real rise in consumer purchasing power. Fieure 1. Data Hierarchy and Methodology for each Study Area Dwelling Unit Income (DUI) — Defined as the product of per capita income and persons per dwelling unit. For each forecast time period, DUI is given by: DUI = PCI • PPDU Total Area Income (TAI) - Represents the total stock of personal income available in each of the four study areas defined according to dwelling unit income and counts. TAI is defined as the product of dwelling unit income and number of dwelling units. For each forecast time period, TAI is given by: TAI = DUI • DU Retail Expenditures (RE) — Represents the share of total area income devoted to retail sales. Data for retail sales are from the Census of Retail Trade published by the U.S. Bureau of the Census. Retail expenditures were found to make up approximately 35.0% of personal income in Collier County. This figure is below the 44.0% figure used in the RS &H study. This discrepancy can be explained by the use of BEA income estimates rather than Census money income data used in prior studies (See Footnote No. 6). This 35% share is applied to total area income to arrive at retail expenditures for each study area at each forecast time period, as follows: RE = TAI .35% Parameters Sales Per Square Foot (SPF) — Sales per square foot is the parameter used to translate retail expenditures into supportable square feet. These data can be obtained from at least a couple of different sources. The National Research Bureau (NRB) publishes a Shopping Center Census with state level estimates of sales per square foot. In the NRB's 2000 Census, SPF was found to be $246.04 in the State of Florida for all shopping center size categories. Sales per square foot estimates for Collier County are in general agreement with NRB state findings. As the name indicates, SPF is defined as annual total retail sales divided by total retail square footage ($ /SF). In order to accurately estimate SPF, only property appraiser defined land uses with close correspondence to the Census Bureau's definition of retail sales are used in the calculation. For instance, the square footage of hotels /motels and theaters are excluded from the SPF calculation since the Census Bureau's definition of retail sales excludes these product services. In Collier County, SPF was determined to be approximately $223.568 based on projected 2001 retail sales of $3431.27 Million and a countywide commercial square footage estimate of 15,348,589 SF9. This figure is rounded up to $225.00 consistent with NRB's higher statewide average and the practice of ensuring conservative forecasts. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) — The FAR converts supportable square feet to supportable acreage. The FAR is the share of a developed lot occupied by actual commercial floor space. FAR is given by the ratio of commercial floor area to overall site size. In the 1996 Golden Gate study, a FAR ranging from 17.46% to 18.67% was utilized. Utilizing current figures, the FAR ranges from 18.82% to 21.65% depending on whether hotels /motels and theaters are excluded or included, respectively. This study utilizes a FAR of 20.0% based on this range. Hence, 20% of a site/lot is devoted to building floor space, leaving the remaining 80% for parking, drainage, open space and all other secondary uses. 8 Consistent with treating income in current dollars, the growth rate of real income is applied to SPF in the forecasts. 9 Includes Unincorporated County and City of Naples estimates of developed SF. Supportable Square Feet (SSF) — Defined as retail expenditures divided by sales per square feet. For each forecast time period, SSF is given by: SSF = RE SPF Given RE is measured in dollars ($) and SPF in dollars per square foot ($ /SF), the units cancel to yield SF. SSF is adjusted to account for a typical 5.0% vacancy rate. Thus, SSF is multiplied by 1.05 to yield the real supportable square footage for a study area. Supportable Acreage (SA) — Represents the final demand for commercial acreage within a study area. SSF is first converted to acres (SSF /43,560) and then divided by the FAR to arrive at SA. More specifically, for each forecast time period, SA is given by: SA = SSF 1 43560 FAR IV. Results All data components and forecasts of commercial space demand, as represented by SA, are assembled in Table 2. These results are accumulated in Table 3 to show forecast demand for the entire Golden Gate area. Forecasts are made in five -year increments to the year 2020. In compiling this information, various data sources and forecast assumptions were made in the analysis. While these sources and assumptions are deemed to be accurate and reasonable, results should be interpreted in recognition of these factors. Table 2. Commercial Land Use Demand Forecasts for Golden Gate Study Areas 1.4 XMIN ppppbo( Pblpgpp(POP) 27,739 39,492 46,089 63,080 M,423 Per CgN baalm(M $26,117 $30,541 033,01 536,586 $36,116 Penang per D,OOM9 WN(PPDU) 2.46 146 146 2.46 246 Dwelling Wit, (DII) 11286 1078 13783 21814 24599 Dwelling Unit Income(OUI) 5891063 $75,019 S81,168 S87,"1 $93,624 Total Me bmme (7M) 5779,374532 51,206,115,477 5152179T,855 $1,888298,769 $2,303,07,523 Pralectee RebO Enpen4lEDee (RE) $272.781766 $422,140,417 5531979,249 $660,869.569 $806,073,03 SONa per Seuen Foot(SPF) $=a S244 5264 $296 $306 SupparteSl. 84uen Fool (SSF) 3213.M i nT,26T 10365,04 2,321036 2,642,7T9 S.WMW Sauen F.% NON4ing"Ical 5%nc+nry 127202 ;013,630 2216,664 2,438238 2.774,918 Floor Mee Re9O (FAR) O3M 0.200 0.200 0200 020 SUPPOM1,4MO.egefu) 146.12 208.18 242.95 279.96 318.52 MM MM2- Fan„enMt "lard" 200 106 2010 20M 2010 POputaiOn, Prole% IPM 5,278 7,520 8,776 10,109 11,506 Pat Capita Ineme (M) $25,451 $27,606 $29,09 53110 $34,502 penone pN Dwelling Wit(PKU) 3.04 3.00 104 3.04 3.04 D.011n9 Wtte(DD) 17U 2470 "M 3321 3790 Dw.N1ng Wit Noma (DDO $77,476 50,156 $91,044 $98,002 $105,027 Total Mee N uui (TA4 513413 6,39 9207 ,90,479 526140,375 $326,446,594 5394951,70 Praleata4 ROW E,penOlb,oe(RE) $47,014084 $71789218 591,80,161 5113190640 S" 6,933224 SOW per Sq. FOat(SPF) 5325 5244 $20 $255 005 Sgx,,OMW$"WO Peat Man 20CM0 291708 347,440 aco= 455,04 SupparteW so. F.I. WIWIng tip" a% a, 219,40 311593 30,812 424232 478,279 Flap, Mee Set. (FM) 020 020 02N 0200 020 Su Orteal,APe.ge ISM 2519 3488 41S7 4824 ".90 MMa•PWw.r.t 20M 2006 2010 SHIM SOM POPU4n9aO, Haleptlau(POP) 7,640 1409 1.2.703 14.413 3460 Per capita h apse (p00 324706 "9,07 $31,391 50,780 $36,201 PMrO„e per 9wWYK UNt(IWON) 200 290 ZOO 100 290 D Mg Wlb 10111 2632 370 4376 6041 67M Uweutag Wit iSaame NM $T7,516 S94,199 591,090 $0,052 $106,00 76*0 A,ae lnaame(TAO 3104.024255 $315,739.405 09409,910 6494,295,016 $601899,872 gyeabO ROyO Ey.a4lthOMM(RE) $71,40264 9310,00,442 $138,523,09 5173,003,256 $211014,955 SW Pat $a .F (SPF) $225 $244 5264 520 $305 SupporteeN SOY. F.et(SSF) 31T,374 45130 527,7% 607,8" Man, SupparteW Spur. Feel, In44u4ing tlpbel 6%rs.r y 333243 474,'"4 554.05 MASS 728,422 FIOOr APOO IWO(FM) 0200 02" 0264 0264 0200 Supporte3N AWeeS.(SA) 382S 54.50 0.0 7326 83.38 S ANA4- Pel,Nenenl Me ROSS 2610 1016 8020 POOWetlan, P- IOOIO-(POP) 1,000 1426 103 1815 2480 Pit Capita I"Me (PCO 52409 $28,316 "01034 532915 436,339 PO,aMe Mr Dw.IBng Unit (PPDlO 322 912 312 512 312 D.ONg Drib (DU) 321 457 534 815 700 Dwelling Unit Nlaaua (DUI) $81230 $0,233 $95,40 $102,749 8110,115 Total MU M. (TAO 226,069470 M,M2i424 SSO,M MSS 4"26401 $77,034525 Praleab4 ROW EapenMNru(RE) S9,724,067 814,119,548 $17,827211 $22,10,915 62401,734 Sales par S4uan Foot (SPF) $225 $244 $264 $200 $306 SpMOrWIa SQWO Feet(SSF) 40,551 67,774 67,425 T7,6" 891396 Suppprbbe SOUMe Fat InaluOb9 WP1*615 %ncn,cY 42,579 60,60 TO,796 81551 0,818 R., Nee Ratio (FM) 0264 0.200 0200 0200 0200 Supp"N. Abee9e (SA) 4.89 6.96 613 9.36 10.65 ROW OrOwM RON of leaalne(M SWY NOW B.82% 41S% 7.64% 71719 NOTE ft* W.$ 0e not bW NN eaawt • 9uWOUt pa,W.N. for es,," , nu. nW, bW Seb fweess4.eould W I,Herprete0 w0N cMtlow Table 3. Commercial Land Use Demand Forecasts For Entire Golden Oats Area ation, Projections (POP) go Per Capita Income (POI) na per Dwelling Unit - Average (PPDU) ing Unite - Study Area Sum (DU) ing Unit Income (DUO Area Income (TAI) nod Retail Expenditures -Study Area Sum (RE) per Square Foot (SPF) xtable Square Feet - Study Area Sum (SSF) oriable Square Feet, Including typical 5% vacancy Area Ratio (FAR) >rtabie Acreage -Study Area Sum (SA) Projections do not take Into account a Bulidout 41,637 59,321 69,230 79,747 90,763 $26,596 $28,878 $31,241 $33,629 $36,039 2.88 2.811 2.88 288 298 15972 22755 26556 30590 34816 $76,560 $83461 569,967 $96,843 $103,785 51,222,788,260 $1,892,312,362 $2,389465,267 $2, 962,454,210 $3,613,354,797 $400,331,092 $619,527,925 $782,193,590 5 969,883,802 S1,SS2,983,446 $225 $244 $264 $285 $305 1,779,249 2,534,915 2,958,368 3,407,790 3,878,609 11868,212 2,661,661 3,106,286 3,578480 4,072,435 0.200 0.200 0.200 0$00 0.200 214.44 305.52 356.55 410.72 467.45 dion for each study area. Thus, later date forecasts should be Interpreted with coubon. IV. Summary & Conclusions An inventory of the existing commercial lands within each study area is presented in Table 4. This Table also depicts the difference between existing commercial acreage and forecast demand in 2005 and 2010. These deficit/surplus calculations are only made to the year 2010 given the increasing likelihood of forecast error and the potential to reach buildout populations. The first column of boxes summarizes existing commercial acreage in each study area. The second and third columns of boxes summarize the forecast demand and associated surplus /deficit of commercial acreage in 2005 and 2010. Graphical treatments of these values are also provided in Graph 1. Currently, study area 1 contains most of the available commercial land for the entire area. Approximately 84% of the total existing commercial acreage is located in study area I. Accordingly, study area 1 is the only sub -area to possess a surplus of commercial space in 2005 (25.06 acre surplus). On the other hand, study areas 2-4 are all characterized by deficient amounts of commercial acreage. In short, these findings suggest that population and income growth can support additional commercial space within the Golden Gate area. However, other factors deserve careful consideration when interpreting these results. Namely, availability of retail space immediately adjacent to the study areas is recognized as helping serve retail needs. Nonetheless, even when considering these adjacent retail centers, each study area is of adequate size to support what is typically characterized as a neighborhood and/or community shopping center10. 0 For example, The International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC) defines a Neighborhood Center as possessing a primary trade area of 3 miles or less, and a Community Center as one possessing a primary trade area of 3 -6 miles. ICSC also gives a site acreage range of 3 -15 acres for Neighborhood Centers, and 1040 acres for Community Centers. in Table 4. Exbting Comma[elel AMU* ana roMCMR Study AM 1 Imercial Zoning Acreage Sys. Area 2 alating Commercial - 2001 Developed Undeveloped Total Acreage anownlal Zoning L79 0 L79 0 0 0 if Acreage L79 0 L79 Study Arta 3 2010 2010 Exlming Commercial - 2001 Demand Surphis or (Desal) 205.18 25.06 Developed Undeveloped Total Acreage Imerclal Zoning 6.46 7.1.5 12.61 6.01 23.69 29.7 l Acreage 1147 30.64 42.31 S"AM4 Exising Oormnerclat -2001 Developed UnUavefoped Total Acreage mrerclal zoning I [no coteteerelal zoning ealsta In Study Area 41 it Acreage 0 200E 2005 2010 2010 Demnd Surplus or (Defidq Demand Surphis or (Desal) 205.18 25.06 242.95 (9.71) 2005 2005 2010 2010 Demand Surplus or (Deficit) DamerM Surpius or (De5d0 35.98 (34.09) 4L07 (40.06) 2005 2005 2010 2010 Demand Surplus or (DefiOh) Demand Surplus or (Deficit) 54.50 (1219) 63.60 (21M) 2005 2005 2010 2010 Detested Surpls at (Deficit) Demand Stapler, or (De0ca0 6.96 (6.96) 5.13 (8.19) Tool A0 Study Areas 1 277.34 305.52 (2818) 356.55 (79.21) • From Dealer County Property Approber'a Office and Compreherohro Planning Stan, 2001 ••FOreoaeta based on maame ology outlined In Figure L L 'Demand" he the forecast Supportable Acreage (SA) for tin specified year L A surplus or (dellel0 4 given by the *".ranee brhreen extending total message and demand (Supportable Acreage) I. A defialt (negative value In parenthesis) Indicates Supportable suroa 0•e. demerrd) a ds the eunmrt steak of sumteerelal acres a. Defiant (called" values) ropresunt the eemmerefal acreage re"Irement for the sapient owes. 1. Prelectlons do not take Into account a Wickert Population for coon study area. Thus, later date forecasts should be Interpreted a 6 roph i Commercial Arxuge Surplus and DWI roreuaao. Difference Between Existing and Supportable Acres 40.00 - -- -- ---- - - - - -- - - -- - - - -- 25.06 20.00 C8 13) l� (20.00) 19.711 - H2.19 (21,29) 28.7a w 7 ao.00) 3a.a9(40.061 1.- E Q _ VN (60.00) .I - - (80.00) 1 - (79.21) (100.00 ) - 1 I II III IV Total Study Areas 112005 Surplus or (Deficit) ■ 2010 Surplus or (Deficit) 5.c. Draft Survey Review Attachment: Draft Survey This draft survey was distributed at the January 91" meeting for the committee's review. It is attached herein for those that were not at the meeting. Directions are provided on the cover sheet of the survey. Draft Survey Golden Gate Area Master Plan Restudy A draft survey was prepared and is attached for your review, comments and answers to the questions. Discussion of the draft survey for the development of a final draft will occur at the Committee' s next meeting on January 23, 2002. Please consider the following as you are reviewing the survey: 1. As you answer all the questions consider whether they are relevant to Golden Gate 2. Pick the top 10 — 15 questions you believe would be most helpful if the survey were distributed to all Golden Gate residents 3. Consider how the survey should be distributed: a. Mail b. Website c. Newspaper 4. Add any additional questions you feel would be useful Bring the draft survey back to the next meeting. Changes to the survey will be decided and best method(s) of distribution will be determined. DRAFT QUESTIONNAIRE FOR THE GOLDEN GATE MASTER PLAN UPDATE PROCESS The Golden Gate Area Master Plan Update Advisory Committee and Collier County Comprehensive Planning Services staff are currently engaged in updating the Golden Gate Area Master Plan; an element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. When the update is completed, the Golden Gate Area Master Plan will be adopted by the Board of County Commissioners and will guide growth and development within the Greater Golden Gate Area for at least the next five years. The Committee and County staff are seeking your help in identifying issues of concern for residents of the Greater Golden Gate Area. Please take some time to respond to the following survey. Individual responses will be kept strictly confidential. Your name and address will not be used for promotional purposes and you will not be contacted unless you so desire. A. YOUR VISION OF GOLDEN GATE Through the Golden Gate Area Master Planning process, area residents have the opportunity to influence the future of the Golden Gate community. Therefore, please take a few moments to think about the overall quality of life for residents of the Greater Golden Gate Area. For the following statements, please select a response from 1 to 5, where 1 means you strongly agree, 2 means you agree, 3 means you are neutral or have no opinion, 4 means you disagree, and 5 means you strongly disagree. Select your response by circling the number that best represents your opinion. # Statement Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 5 4 3 2 1 1 The Golden Gate Area has major strengths upon which the community 5 4 3 2 1 can build. 2 Challenges facing the Golden Gate Area in the future have the potential 5 4 3 2 1 to damage the Area's quality of life. 3 The County should create new neighborhoods in the Golden Gate 5 4 3 2 1 Area by closing through streets, providing landscaping and /or entrance features, and developing neighborhood parks and/or constructin sidewalks. Comments: B. INFRASTRUCTURE The Merriam - Webster Collegiate Dictionary defines public infrastructure as the system of public works of a country, state, or region. In this sense, infrastructure includes roads, water distribution systems, wastewater collection systems (i.e., sewers), drainage systems, electrical networks, public buildings and other facilities that make public service provision possible. For the following statements, please select a response from 1 to 5, where 1 means you strongly agree, 2 means you agree, 3 means you are neutral or have no opinion, 4 means you disagree, and 5 means you strongly disagree. Select your response by circling the number that best represents your opinion. # statement Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 5 4 3 2 1 1 The level of infrastructure in the Golden Gate Area is adequate to 5 4 3 2 1 meet the Area's current and future needs. 2 The level of infrastructure in the Golden Gate Area is not adequate 5 4 3 2 1 to meet the Area's current and Future needs. 3 Inadequate infrastructure within the Greater Golden Gate Area results in 5 4 3 2 1 harm to the Area's natural environment, economic development and quality of life. 4 Infrastructure is not a problem now, but will become one as more and 5 4 3 2 1 more of the Area's platted lots are occupied. 5 Infrastructure is currently a problem, and one that will only worsen as 5 4 3 2 1 more and more of the Area's platted lots are occupied. 6 Rainfall flooding is a serious problem within the Greater Golden 5 4 3 2 1 Gate Area. 7 The Golden Gate Area requires extensive drainage and flood control 5 4 3 2 1 rs im rovements. Golden Gate residents are willing to _ pay for additional drainage 5 4 3 2 1 improvements and better flood control facilities. F# Statement Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 5 4 3 2 1 9 The road system within the Greater Golden Gate Area is adequate to 5 4 3 2 1 meet the current needs of the I community. _ 10 The road system within the Greater Golden Gate Area is not adequate 5 4 3 2 1 to meet the future needs of the community. 11 Golden Gate residents would be willing to pay increased gas taxes if 5 4 3 2 1 the money was directed toward road improvements within the Golden Gate Area. The Greater Golden Gate Area has _ 12122 an adequate bicycle and pedestrian 5 4 3 2 1 path system. 13 Area residents would be willing to tax themselves for bicycle path and 5 4 3 2 1 pedestrian pat h improvements. 14 The public sewer system within the Greater Golden Gate Area should 5 4 3 2 1 be expanded to incorporate areas currently using septic s stems. 15 The public potable water system within the Greater Golden Gate 5 4 3 2 1 Area should be expanded to j incorporate areas currently using septic s stems. 16 Residents with sewer and water hookups should also be required to 5 4 3 2 1 hook up to a Gray Water (treated wastewater ) irrigation system. 17 The Golden Gate Area has an adequate number of public parks 5 4 3 2 1 and recreation facilities. Comments: C. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ISSUES: Economic issues affect the character of a community and may determine whether the community is self- sustaining or dependent upon outside influences. An important part of the Master Planning process is to determine whether the Golden Gate Area has an adequate economic base. The following statements concern economic development issues for the community. For the following statements, please select a response from 1 to 5, where 1 means you strongly agree, 2 means you agree, 3 means you are neutral or have no opinion, 4 means you disagree, and 5 means you strongly disagree. Select your response by circling the number that best represents your opinion. # Statement Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 5 4 3 2 1 1 The majority of job- seeking Golden Gate residents are easily able to find 5 4 3 2 1 work within the Greater Golden Gate Area. 2 The Greater Golden Gate Area is attractive to start -up businesses and 5 4 3 2 1 companies relocating from other areas. 3 Retail stores within the Greater Golden Gate Area are of sufficient 5 4 3 2 1 types, quality, quantity and distribution to serve the Area's needs. 4 The Greater Golden Gate Area should strive to attract office park 5 4 3 2 1 developments. 5 The Greater Golden Gate Area should strive to attract industrial park 5 4 3 2 1 developments. 6 The County should create incentives for new development within the 5 4 3 2 1 Golden Gate Area. such as streamlined approval processes, impact fee waivers, reduced taxation, 7 etc. The County should provide incentives for new retail development 5 4 3 2 1 within the Greater Golden Gate Area. S The Community's overall economic �base is improving_ _ 5 4 3 2 1 9 i I The Community's overall economic base is declining. _ 5 4 3 2 1 Comments: J D. THE NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: An important component of any community is its natural environment. Our perceptions of the natural environment influence our overall perception of the community we live in and have important impacts on an area's quality of life. The following statements concern the Golden Gate Area's natural environment and the manner in which it influences the overall quality of life in the community. F For the following statements, please select a response from 1 to 5, where 1 means you strongly agree, 2 means you agree, 3 means you are neutral or have no opinion, 4 means you disagree, and 5 means you strongly disagree. Select your response by circling the number that best represents your opinion. # Statement Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree j 5 4 3 2 1 1 The natural environment of the Golden Gate Area is seriously 5 4 3 2 1 declining. 2 Surface water pollution is a serious problem in the Greater Golden Gate 5 4 3 2 1 Area- 3 Groundwater pollution is a serious problem in the Greater Golden Gate 5 4 3 2 1 Area. 4 The Golden Gate Area faces a serious potable water shortage in the 5 4 3 2 1 near future. 5 Development within the Golden Gate Area is seriously intruding into 5 4 3 2 1 environmentally sensitive areas. 6 Federal and State environmental regulations adequately protect 5 4 3 2 1 wetlands, native uplands and habitat for protected species within the Greater Golden Gate Area. 7 Collier County should develop an environmental permitting program to 5 4 3 2 1 protect wetlands, native uplands and habitat for protected species within the Greater Golden Gate Area. 8 Golden Gate residents would be willing to tax themselves for the 5 4 3 2 1 protection of the Area's protect wetlands, native uplands and habitat for protected species. 1_ -- Comments: ; E. GROWTH MANAGEMENT: Growth Management can be defined as the rules, procedures and regulations that govern growth and development within an area. When the Golden Gate Area was initially developed, there was very little growth management. Currently, new development in Collier County is subject to many different growth management rules, regulations and processes. For the following statements, please select a response from 1 to 5, where 1 rneans you strongly agree, 2 means you agree, 3 means you are neutral or have no opinion, 4 means you disagree, and 5 means you strongly disagree. Select your response by circling the number that 'best represents vour opinion. # Statement Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 5 4 3 2 1 1 County Government should take an active role in addressing the very 5 4 3 2 1 large number of vacant platted lots in the Greater Golden Gate Area. 2 Overall, development within the Golden Gate Area needs to be more 5 4 3 2 1 tightly regulated. 3 Development regulations within the Golden Gate Area are adequate to 5 4 3 2 1 protect the environment and ensure that the quality of life is not degraded. Comments: 6 F GOVERNMENTAL (PUBLIC) SERVICES: Public services (sometimes called essential services) include potable water provision, wastewater treatment, electricity, telephone, solid waste disposal, fire protection, police services, emergency medical services, public health services and social services. The following survey statements seek to assess the degree to which residents of Golden Gate are satisfied with the provision of essential services. For the following statements, please select a response from 1 to 5, where 1 means you strongly agree, 2 means you agree, 3 means you are neutral or have no opinion, 4 means you disagree, and 5 means you strongly disagree. Select your response by circling the number that best represents your opinion. # Statement Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 5 4 3 2 1 —1 --The essential services provided within the Greater Golden Gate 5 4 3 2 1 Area are adequate to meet the needs of current and future residents. 2 Collier County should take a more active role in providing essential 5 4 3 2 1 services to the Greater Golden Gate Area, 3 Public and private schools within the Golden Gate Area are of sufficient 5 4 3 2 1 number, distribution and quality to meet the area's educational needs. 4 The County's bus system adequately provides for the mass 5 4 3 2 1 transit needs of Golden Gate residents. 5 County services available within the Golden Gate Area should be cut 5 4 3 2 1 back. 6 County services available within the Golden Gate Area should be 5 4 3 2 1 increased. 7 Collier County should rely on public - private partnerships, volunteerism 5 4 3 2 1 and civic groups to provide public services within the Golden Gate Area. 7 # Statement Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 5 4 3 2 1 8 The majority of Golden Gate residents are retirees with fixed 5 4 3 2 1 incomes who cannot afford to pay for additions or expansions to public services. 9 Private corporations could provide quality services in a more cost- 5 4 3 2 1 effective manner than County Government. 10 Golden Gate residents would support incorporation if it meant 5 4 3 2- 1 improved public services could be rovided. 11 One or more municipal services taxing units (MSTUs) or municipal 5 4 3 2 1 services benefit units (MSBUs) should be established within the Greater Golden Gate Area to pay for and provide public services. Comments: G. CIVIC CULTURE: Civic culture is concerned not only with an area's cultural activities, but also with the civic pride, or lack thereof, that residents feel for their community. For the following statements, please select a response from 1 to 5, where 1 means you strongly agree. 2 means you agree, 3 means you are neutral or have no opinion, 4 means you disagree, and 5 means you strongly disagree. Select your response by circling the number that best represents your opinion. # Statement Strongly Disagree Neutral Agree Strongly Disagree Agree 5 4 3 2 1 1 One of the strengths of the Greater Golden Area is its strong civic 5 4 3 2 1 culture. 2 There are many examples of civic pride in the Golden Gate 5 4 3 2 1 Community that can serve as "building blocks" for future progress. 3 The Golden Gate Community has a positive self-image. 5 4 3 2 1 4 Within the Golden Gate area there is an overarching sense of 5 4 3 2 1 community that connects all age groups and economic levels of residents. 5 Golden Gate area residents are severely divided by various 5 4 3 2 1 tensions or poi nts of rancor. 6 The area's seasonal residents are involved with the area's community 5 4 3 2 1 affairs. 7 The various portions of the Golden Gate Area lack a sense of 5 4 3 2 1 neighborhood identity. 8 The Greater Golden Gate Area possesses a strong business 5 4 3 2 1 environment. 9 Golden Gate residents have a i stronq sense of the area's history. 5 4 3 2 1 10 There are aspects of the area's civic culture that need 5 4 3 2 1 improvement. Comments: 0 H. RANKING In Sections 8 through G above, statements were categorized into general groups each addressing a broad set of issues (e.g. infrastructure, economic development, etc). Within the second column of the Table below, please rank these six issues of concern in order of importance. Please use a 1 to represent the most important issue, 2 the second most important issue, and so on until 6 -the least important issue. Issue of Concern Grouping Rank (1 -most important, 6 -least important) Infrastructure Economic Develo ment The Natural Environment Growth Management Governmental Public Services Civic Culture 10 In which geographic area (1-4) is your property located? Please circle the number corresponding to the area mapped below. 1 2 3 4 CITY OF NAPLES —� +1 O MAP 1 GOLDEN GATE AREA MASTER PLAN COLLIER COUNTY. FLORIDA HENDRY CO. COLLIER Co. MDY AREA LAKE TRAFFORD C.R. 846 LEE CO. COLLIER CO. S.R. 84 1 -75 z V C LS 4� N N MARCO ISLAND IV P Z4 BCALf O SMI. IdAI. PREPARED By GRAPHICS ANO TECHNICAL SUPPORT SEC %N COMMUNITY DEKLOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL SERNCES OINSION RILE . GGMP -9.0P0 DATE: 12101 I 6, CLEF OF MEY�CO R Q E`iERCIADES CITY Mailing Address _. Feasinomics, Inca PO Box 770517 Naples, FL 34107 Office Address 1044 Castello Dr Suite 103 Naples, FL 34103 1. 941.649.7733 Phone 1- 941 - 4348366 Fax infoOfeasinomics.co,n e-mail April 28, 1999 Jassey Real Estate Investments 895 Turtle Court Naples, FL 34108 RE; Commercial Land inventories by planning district Dear Mr. Jassey, At your request, I have summarized the commercial land inventory by planning district for Collier County. The summary on the following pages, reflects the number of vacant parcels zoned for commercial and industrial uses that are currently vacant for each planning district. The summary reflects the following data for each planning district. • The number of zoned parcels which are vacant • The total square footage per Planning District The total acres per Planning District • The average sites square footage per Planning District The average site acreage per Planning District The median site square footage per Planning District The median site acreage per Planning District Collectively, there are a total of 1317 parcels of land which are currently vacant and zoned for commercial or industrial uses. This equates to a total of 108,906,004 square feet or slightly over 2,500 acres of commerciaVindustrial zoned land. The average commercial site within Collier County is 119,066 square feet or 2.73 acres. In the case of the commercial land availability, the median site square footage or median site acreage best reflects the statistical supply of adequately size lots within each planing district. Based upon the current market demand for development of a freestanding drugstore, the minimum site square footage for this use is approximately one acre or a site with approximately 200 feet of frontage and over 200 feet in depth. • Page 2 April 28, 1999 If the concentrate on the commercially zoned land that is vacant within Golden Gate, we see that the average site size offers adequate site utility for development of a freestanding drugstore. However, median site size of 11,325 square feet or slightly over 1/4 acre is insufficient for development of a freestanding commercial use such as the proposed subject use. The typical site depth for parcels within Golden Gate City is approximate 110 feet which is insufficient for development of a freestanding retail use which contains approximately 8,000 to 12,000 square feet of leasable area. The Minimum site depth would be 200 feet. Considering the limited supply of sites within Golden Gate City which offer adequate site utility, development of parcels with sufficient site utility for proposed uses is recommended. If you have any further questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at my office. Si rely, F sinomics Inc. Mi ael J. Timmerman, SRA St.Cert.Res.RF -4 0001331 President T 0 G �r H tQ V � 01 C E 'c U a w a d CD a d N � : �p V' �O N O� � M •^ M 00 to O O O O O O O O N N w N 7 n to N N M N N OD M > Q a d to M M 6f to 00 o V T v O M �T 10 Z I ... t- M ". C r cl to tY l > N tNf1 V' �( N N a c " a r a' v C U O 0) MO c t Q O r N ttoo N •N - `N' "r !' to M t0 a0 n N N M t0 G u l ^ V' N n (P (O N N N N E ., O d N S' h aI n n m 0) ao o O n n to N M d' M o m�my� w Vf1 r; m OD O r to W .nn- n O o I€L O N o E o M rn v co to o H 00 M V O N N O O "t QQ1 E M to N n V• n O C V (O 0 t0 O M N M r O 0 r 'tj u1 — r - — M r d d d _ � I Eaa 0 m " m E Q N a d a C O. d N p O d Y a W U 'i Z a E z w U. z w o 0 'a z E z z x w 0 0 w FEASINOMICS, INC. Information Management Services • Market Analysis and Consulting July 26, 1999 Jassey Real Estate Investments 895 Turtle Court Naples, FL 34108 RE: Growth Management Plan Amendment CP -99 -2 Dear Mr. Jassey, At your request, I have reviewed and summarized the commercial land inventory by planning district and evaluated the commercial demand for retail uses in Golden Gate City. The summary on the following pages, reflects the number of vacant parcels zoned for commercial uses in each planning district with a more detailed analysis of the commercial sites within Golden Gate City. The summary reflects the following data for each planning district. • The number of zoned parcels which are vacant • The total square footage per Planning District • The total acres per Planning District • The average sites square footage per Planning District • The average site acreage per Planning District • The median site square footage per Planning District • The median site acreage per Planning District Collier County Commercial Land Inventory Collectively, there are a total of 1027 parcels of land in Collier County which are currently vacant and zoned for commercial uses only. This equates to a total of 68,302,971 square feet or slightly over 1,568 acres of commercially zoned vacant land. The average vacant commercial site within Collier County is 81,326 square feet or 1.87 acres. The median site square footage or median site acreage best reflects the statistical supply of adequately size lots within each planning district. The median is determined by sorting the records for each planning district in ascending order according to size. After each record is sorted by size, the middle record isolated reflects the median, with the corresponding value the median site size. The median reflects the highest concentration of values within the sample, therefore the majority of sites within the sample have similar site sizes to the median. As we can see from the attached spreadsheet, the Phone (941) 649 -7733 ■ Fax: (941) 434 -8366 ■ Web www_feasinomics com PO Box 770517 ■ Naples, Florida 34107 r - r.., -- ._ I- __ i..,"___.____ __ • Page 2 July 26, 1999 median site size is considerably smaller than the average within each planning district. The chart titled "Vacant Commercial Land Inventory by Planing District" summarizes the findings. Golden Gate Commercial Land Inventory An evaluation of vacant commercial parcels in Golden Gate City was performed, with the findings located in a chart titled `Vacant Sites in Golden Gate City". This analysis illustrates the vacant sites sorted by Zoning Classification, road frontage and average site size. It includes sites currently zoned for Residential Uses, and those available for Commercial transition through the Future Land Use Designation. After a review of these sites, it was apparent they did not offer the utility required for development of the proposed uses. The average site depth for these lots is 125 feet, which is not considered sufficient for development of a Drug store use. The commercial site depth is estimated based upon a review of the individual sites within Golden Gate City. The source for determining this average site depth was a review of the Collier County tax maps which indicates the average frontage and depth for each parcel. Unfortunately, the individual tax record does not offer the sites average frontage and depth only the total square foot of each site. The width of the commercial sites within Golden Gate is an irrelevant issue as even if several parcels were assembled, the lack of adequate site depth would make it improbable to develop many commercial uses. Considering the limited supply of sites which offer adequate physical utility, and a locabonal situs desired for development of the proposed uses, the creation of an additional commercial infill parcel will satisfy this demand. The addition of commercial land offering adequate site utility will not adversely affect on the existing sites or the surrounding area. The fact few commercial sites have been sold over the past several years indicates the improvements which can be development on the sites are either not demanded or the sites do not offer adequate utility for the demanded commercial uses. Based upon my review of the sites physical characteristics, it is my opinion the latter is the case for many uses, included the proposed. Commercial Demand for Golden Gate Planning District. The demand for drug stores and convenience oriented retail uses is steadily increasing in the Golden Gate planning district and the surrounding areas. The fact the majority of Golden Gate estates residents utilize the retail facilities in Golden Gate City further supports the increased demand for this location. As indicated above, the availability of adequate sites with frontage on two major roadways is very limited. Drugstore use is the most intense of the uses proposed for the site. Since the demand for drug store locations is on comers at major intersections, this use is most analyzed with other uses of less intensity such as banks and ancillary office, considered more compatible with the general uses found in other areas of Golden Gate City. The proposed site, at the northwest comer of Golden Gate Parkway and Santa Barbara Blvd, is the only comer at this intersection which is not currently improved. Improvements on the southwest comer consist of a church, southeast comer a proposed commercial use, and the improvement on the • Page 3 July 26, 1999 northeast comer is a neighborhood center anchored by an Eckerts Drug store. Considering the uses on the surrounding comers are commercial and institutional indicates the subject should be developed with a compatible use. The proposed use for the site provides for a low - density commercial development, which is consistent with the locational characteristics of this major intersection, and the surrounding uses. If you have any further questions regarding this letter, please feel free to contact me at my office. ncerely, asinomics Inc. Mi h I J. Timmerman, SRA StCert.Res.REA 0001331 President U) m CL A c 0 4) > \ } ) 6 6 6 6 C5 6 .4 6 §} -zl- 0, w m m \ 'T m to (N 0 C, CD 0 0 'T (D T Co Co CD q M 0) �r m co q m a) m co co rD m 'd C� C6 g 6 6 C6 �f 'i 06 "i >to Im U to CO t ID 0 co CO N t'- C14 %T 0 m -Ir C 0 C6 'i C6 C'� C6 (6 1': .9 co CD C4 -s (D m m co co ') m v 'o 2 �- to 0 0 m w N m r.— 0 3 m 4) U. 5 /& /\& R oc� (Q Lq , q E Lo 0 m w E m 0 r- Lo cD "T Q« N N r- v cc m 0 (D (6 (d L6 cli Id: cli (3i cli v U) (D oo U� CN P- 'It E E a. 0 \ © a k E m -a o o V a C z Z a u L z U m 0 w 3 2 z z w (if m= cq I co cli 0 E E {E \ \�} /{k) B 6 c 2! -C c LD g c .— u E §L E E c c ED 0 a 3: 0 , /k�/ \ \ \ \\ r 0 I- 1 co IL k(� — C7, / � } w \ \ } } f > � % J } ¥ � f / \k L � k 9 , \ f # \ / t: $ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ $ ^ c | r. ■� N {O O J 3 5 3 3 2 2/ 2§ ^ _ \2 � | k( § ' m _ > � 2 Im o k ) � { ■ \ " \ \ c \ c } 0 \ \ c \ = 0 A! io !- !) ®X _ » \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ Market - Conditions Study Colonnades At Santa Barbara Planned Unit Development Submitted For: Comprehensive Plan Amendment (Golden Gate Area Master Plan) Petition #CP- 2005 -5 Golden Gate Estates Commercial Infill Subdistrict Prepared By: Fraser & Mohlke Associates, Inc. Post Office Box 2312 Naples, Florida 34106 -2312 July 28, 2006 Market - Conditions Study Table of Contents Tab 1. Market Conditions 2. Existing Commercial Land Uses 3. Retail Demand Forecasts 4. Summary of Findings Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page I -1 I. MARKET CONDITIONS: GOLDEN GATE PLANNING COMMUNITY DISTRICT This analysis commences with an evaluation of population growth and transportation infrastructure development within the Golden Gate Planning Community District, a collection of contiguous neighborhoods within the coastal urban area of Collier County. An analysis of the general Golden Gate area with special emphasis on the Golden Gate Census Desig- nated Place (CDP), also known as "Golden Gate City," will provide an over- all context for assessing the basic goods and services needs of the area's population. Population Growth 1990 -2015 By the year 2015, the permanent population of the Golden Gate Plan- ning Community District (PCD) is projected to grow 64.69 percent from 35,325 persons in 2000 to 58,178 persons in 2015, an increase of 22,853 per- sons according to October 4, 2005, estimates provided by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section. Permanent - population projections for the Golden Gate PCD demonstrate the following growth patterns: Table 1.01 Population Estimates and Growth Projections (As of April 1 of each year) 2000 2005 2010 2015 Golden Gate PCD 35,325 44,179 51,156 58,178 Percent ( %) share of: Unincorporated County 16.43% 15.74% 14.42% 13.55% % of total Collier County 14.05% 13.81% 12.87% 12.27% Unincorporated Total 215,043 280,671 354,747 429,306 Collier County Total 251,377 319,905 397,434 474,192 Sources: Collier County Permanent Population Estimates and Projections (2000 -2015) Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section (October 4, 2005) In order to estimate the population of Golden Gate City for the period 2000 -2015, the population of the Golden Gate CDP (Golden Gate City) at the time of the decennial census in 2000 was taken as the starting point. As of April 1, 2000, the census - determined population of Golden City was 20,951 persons, or 9.74 percent of the population of Unincorporated Collier County; that translates to 59.31 percent of the 2000 population of the Golden Gate PDC. Extrapolating from the base numbers provided by the 2000 Census, the population of Golden Gate City should increase by 7,598 persons, or 36.27 percent, over 15 years. Table 1.02 below demonstrates CDP population growth for the same 15 -year period, 2000 to 2015. Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Table 1.02 Population Estimates and Growth Projections (As of April 1 of each year) Golden Gate City Percent (%) share of: Unincorporated County % of Golden Gate PCD Page I -2 2000 2005 2010 2015 354,747 429,306 51,156 58,178 20,951 25,401 27,422 28,549 9.74% 59.31% Unincorporated Total 215,043 Golden Gate PCD Total 35,325 Percent ( %) share of: Unincorporated County 16.43% 9.05% 57.50% 280,671 44,179 15.74% 7.73% 6.66% 53.60% 49.07% 354,747 429,306 51,156 58,178 14.42% 13.55% Sources: Collier County ermanent Population Estimates and Projections (2000 -2015) U. S. Bureau of the Census for the 2000 decennial census. Transportation Infrastructure Improvements Historically, County government's program to complete the roadway network within the Golden Gate Planning Community District (PCD) has established the area as having very significant, long -term growth potential. Experience demonstrates that Collier County's Capital Improvements Pro- gram (CIP) program of new roadway construction and /or capacity improve- ments is a reliable indicator of residential and commercial new construction activities and, consequently, a predictor of future population growth. Development of the Collier County 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) Update The Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETEA -LU), enacted in 2005, provides the federal man- date by which the Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) must update its Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP). To ensure continuation of Federal revenues to Collier County, in- cluding non - transportation dollars, the Collier County MPO is required to prepare and adopt an updated LRTP that provides a minimum 20 -year plan by July 1, 2007. The Collier County LRTP must meet the following goals: • Preserve the existing transportation system; • Promote efficient management and operation of the system; • Increase accessibility to the system; LM fwNy 101ix COUYy Itl iiii /ee Ares FIGURE 1 DRAFT HIGHWAY NEEDS PLAN J'.\ 00026\ 000'. 6018. 00\ DOC\ Rcpons\PublicConvnem \LRTPSummary doe December 2005 Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market- Conditions Study Page I -3 • Link the existing system to new, improved roadways; and • Increase the system's safety and security. To ensure that the LRTP reflected Collier County's growth in popula- tion and employment, an Urban Land Use Allocation Model (ULAM) was utilized to reflect development patterns and the impact on the transporta- tion system of anticipated growth rates for the period 2010 to 2030. Fore- casted land uses were programmed to account for previously announced de- velopment plans, employment and school - enrollment projections, and esti- mates of traffic growth rates. The ULAM evaluated the existing transportation system in both Lee and Collier counties in 2005 and the commitments both counties have made to finance and construct an improved surface transportation network for both counties were accounted for when developing the allocation model. A map illustrating the overall lane - capacity needs for the Collier County 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan faces page I -3. A model "Existing -Plus- Committed (E +C)" roadway network was cre- ated for both counties and matched against forecasted population, school - enrollment, and employment for the year 2030. The congestion levels pre - dicted for the model E +C network demonstrated a 300 - percent increase of vehicle -hours of travel and 33- percent decrease in "congested speed" leading to a commensurate 33- percent increase in travel time. The updated 2030 Needs Plan has multiple components. They are: • Highway; • Transit; • Pathways, bicycle and pedestrian; • Freight; and • Maintenance and operation of the entire Collier County transporta- tion system. The following analysis addresses specifically the Highway Component of the 2030 Needs Plan. The goal of the Highway Component is to identify Collier County's roadway needs for the period ending in 2030 (the "plan year 2030 ") so that projected 2030 traffic will be carried at an acceptable Level of Service (LOS) on the identified 2030 roadway network. A. detailed 2030 Highway Needs Network LOS Evaluation is provided below in Table 1.03 in the form of a 2015 Interim Plan. It identifies each roadway segment in proximity to the Colonnades At Santa Barbara including the Golden Gate Planning Community District (PCD) and the easternmost sections of the Central Naples PCD adjacent to Golden Gate Parkway. VOLUME -TO- CAPACITY RATIO VC <0.75 VC> =0.75 & <1.0 VC > =1.0 & <1.25 VC> =1.25 LEE COU MTY� COLLIER COUMTY I NTS IMMOKALEE FIGURE 2 2015 Interim Network Volume -to- Capacity Ratio Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page I -4 Table 1.03 identifies each roadway segment by the existing number of lanes, the lanes needed for the plan year 2030, lanes committed to be built by the interim plan year 2015, forecasted traffic volumes for 2015, the 2015 Annual Average Daily Traffic (AADT), and a Volume -To- Capacity (V /C) Ratio to indicate whether the desired Level of Service (LOS) is met or not met. Roadways are shown in descending order from the highest V/C Ratio to the lowest. "E +C" Lanes are lanes on existing roads and road improvements under construction or programmed for construction. Numbers (2, 4, 6) are the number of road lanes. The letter "R" designates a rural road, "L" a local road, "U" an undivided road and "D" a divided road. The "2015 Volumes" repre- sent the total daily traffic that the improved road segment can carry and still maintain an acceptable LOS. The AADT is calculated from model volumes utilizing a seasonal adjustment factor for Collier County; a ratio of less than 1.00 means that the LOS is maintained; a ratio greater than 1.00 means that the forecasted volumes exceed the adopted LOS standard for that roadway. A map illustrating the Collier County volume -to- capacity Ratio for the plan year 2015 Interim Network faces page I -4. Table 1.03 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) LOS Evaluation -. 2015 Interim Plan: Volume -To- Capacity Analysis Golden Gate PCD and Related Roadways (February 20, 2006) Road Link E + C 2030 2015 2015 2015 2015 Number Lanes Needs Lanes Volumes AADT V/C Ratio CR -951 Collier Boulevard 6D 6D 44,700 61,700 1.38 Davis Blvd. to 1 -75 CR -886 Golden Gate Parkway. 6D 6D 53,500 54,500 1.02 Livingston Rd. to 1 -75 SR -93 Interstate 75 (1 -75) 6F 8F 6F 85,300 82,200 0.96 CR -886 to Pine Ridge Rd. CR -886 Golden Gate Parkway 6D 6D 53,500 48,600 0.91 Airport Rd. to Livingston Rd. CR -951 Collier Boulevard 411 6D 411 35,700 30,900 0.87 CR -886 to Pine Ridge Rd. Santa Barbara Boulevard 6D 6D 49,200 40,600 0.83 Radio Road to CR -886 CR -951 Collier Boulevard 6D 6D 43,500 33,800 0.78 Pine Ridge Road to Golden Gate Boulevard CR -951 Collier Boulevard 6D 6D 53,500 40,900 0.76 Rattlesnake to Davis Blvd. Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page I -5 Table 1.03 (continued) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) LOS Evaluation 2015 Interim Plan: Volume -To- Capacity Analysis Golden Gate PCD and Related Roadways (February 20, 2006) Road Link. E + C 2030 2015 2015 2015 2015 Number Lanes Needs Lanes Volumes AADT V/C Ratio Logan Boulevard 4D 6D 4D 35,700 26,200 0.73 Green Boulevard to Pine Ridge Road CR -886 Golden Gate Parkway 6D 6D 53,500 38,400 0.72 1 -75 to Santa Barbara Blvd. CR -951 Collier Boulevard 411 6D 4R 35,700 24,200 0.68 1 -75 to CR -886 CR -856 Radio Road 4D 4D 4D 35,700 24,100 0.68 Livingston Road to Santa Barbara Boulevard Santa Barbara Boulevard 6D 6D 53,500 34,200 0.64 Davis Boulevard (SR -84) to Radio Road Santa Barbara Boulevard 4D 6D 4D 32,700 20,700 0.63 CR -886 to Green Boulevard Santa Barbara Extension 4D 6D 4D 35,700 21,600 0.61 CR -864 to SR -84 CR -886 Golden Gate Parkway 4D 4D 35,700 20,300 0.57 Santa Barbara Boulevard To CR -951 CR -881 Livingston Road 6D 6D 53,500 29,800 0.56 CR -856 to Cr -886 SR -84 Davis Boulevard 6D 6D 49,200 20,100 0.41 CR -856 to CR -951 Green Boulevard 2U 4D 4D 21,700 5,000 0.23 Santa Barbara Boulevard to CR -951 SR -84 Davis Boulevard 6D 6D 53,500 12,200 0.23 Santa Barbara Boulevard to CR -856 CR -864 Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. 4D 6D 6D 46,800 10,700 0.23 Polly Avenue to CR -951 Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page I -6 Table 1.03 (continued) 2030 Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) LOS Evaluation 2015 interim Plan: Volume -To- Capacity Analysis Golden Gate PCD and Related Roadways (February 20, 2006) Road Link E + C 2030 2015 2015 2015 2015 Number Lanes Needs Lanes Volumes AADT V/C Ratio Sunshine Boulevard 4D 4D 21,700 4,400 0.20 CR -886 to Green Blvd. CR -856 Radio Road 4D 4D 4D 35,700 5,700 0.16 Santa Barbara Boulevard to SR -84 Coronado Parkway 4D 4D 21,700 1,700 0.08 Santa Barbara Boulevard To CR -886 Analysis of Roadway Capacity in Collier County The 2015 Interim Plan exhibited in Table 1.03 above has identified needed roadway capacity improvements. The following examination of ac- tual roadway utilization focuses on the Golden Gate PCD and adjacent por- tions of the Central Naples PCD. At the onset of Fiscal Year 2006 (October 1, 2005 to September 30, 2006), the Collier County's public facilities Annual Update and Inventory Report (AUIR) dated December 20, 2005 reported traffic volume increases countywide. Documented increases in population, lane miles, vehicle miles, and the percent of system utilization through to plan year 2015 provide the basis for a short -term roadway construction program in the subject area under study beginning in 2006 and extending to 2011. Collier County's Transportation Services Division and the Florida De- partment of Transportation (FDOT) have programmed pre- construction, road resurfacing, and construction activities in response to needed roadway improvements identified in the 2030 Needs Plan and the 2005 AUIR. After eliminating small -scale projects and landscaping programs, the countywide total of roadway projects for the period FY06 - FYI is estimated to be $617,742,000. Detailed data applicable to the general are under study and incorpo- rated in the County's approved 5 -Year Work Program for the referenced pe- riod (FY06 - FY 11) is listed below in Table 1.04: Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page I -7 Table 1.04 Golden Gate PCD and Related Roadway Projects: Collier County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) Fiscal Year 2005/2006 (FY06) to Fiscal Year 2010/2011 (FYI 1) (June 9, 2006) PROJECT NAME COST TYPE START COMPLETE Collier Boulevard (CR -951) $62,480,000 Various FY06 FY09 US-41 to Golden Gate Canal Golden Gate Parkway Overpass $29,503,000 CST FY05 FY07 Santa Barbara Boulevard $51,400,000 Various FY06 FY10 Extension to CR -864 (2 projects) Rattlesnake Hammock Rd. (CR -864) $28,266,000 CST FY06 FY08 Polly Avenue to CR -951 Santa Barbara Boulevard $3,972,000 ROW FY07 FY08 Copperleaf to Green Boulevard Collier Boulevard (CR -951) $29,800,000 ROW/ FY06 FYl l Golden Gate Boulevard to CST Pine Ridge Road Total Project Costs $205,421,000 CST: Construction Collier County Project Costs $617,742,000 ROW: Right Of Way Percent of Collier County Total 33.25% Traffic volume generated along identified segments of major roadway corridors, particularly those roadways programmed for improvement and listed in the 5 -Year Work Program remains a reasonable predictor of where future focal points of commercial office and retail growth will be located. Defining a Market- Support Area for Analysis Colonnades At Santa Barbara: This market - conditions study is sub- mitted to document that the Colonnades At Santa Barbara (the "subject site ") is well located to serve the goods and services needs of the surrounding residential communities and local businesses within convenient travel dis- tance to the Center site. A map identifying the location of the subject site is exhibited on the facing page. Area: To assess the feasibility of commercial uses that are proposed for the subject site, identification of a market - support area is desirable. In 1994, the Naples /Collier County Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) devel- oped projections of urban -area dwelling units (both single - family and multi- I WT M 257J 297 swom LANES (am) t 7' PRCdO CA'R*JNA -II YY Aj We ALES ESTATES WT 2 WET 3 WET 6 I 7!q,7�5 Mpg 1602,41 I WT M 257J 297 swom LANES (am) t 7' PRCdO CA'R*JNA Aj We ALES ESTATES WT 2 WET 3 WET 6 scumommouUnwo 1602,41 WEINt"', Musa WL G01.01717ATES GDLm QAIE MATES 4VIF MT I MT M PA YE A4E 16 Ic. 11 15 GOLDEN WE ESTATES G%ORK SAW ESTATES GATE ESTATES IANT a WET I 0 " TES L"T PO 600.1 —A, w ME AM ! 292 229 207 71T,.E 203 Lff, §QdOr - UNWT 21 r 0 60 L e K ry 27 20; GG TIX AL PLAZA WESTPORT RLV L�s !"COMMERCE is .9 LAKES 360.1 NsduGCN TE AND a yA.Np I =NTR, 9 CLUB NAPLES HAICNAL F MAC IOL I Vtue as $ Aw - mm Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page I -8 family) by identifying the degree of "saturation" or "development potential" attainable within the urban County's 191 Traffic Analysis Zones (TAZ) then in place in 1994. The data employed for the saturation analysis includes the quantity of vacant land within each urban -area TAZ and the land's suitabil- ity for residential and commercial uses, including retail, as determined by the density indices and the other policy- driven measures provided for in Collier County's Comprehensive Growth Management Plan. The methodology utilized in projecting new population and resultant job growth within each TAZ employed an inventory of then existing dwell- ing -unit and commercial development in the County's coastal -urban area. The methodology forecasted future development on currently undeveloped parcels by calculating attainable dwelling -unit saturation and related job growth likely to be generated by new- resident demand for basic goods and services. The 1994 "saturation" forecasts for individual Traffic Analysis Zones utilized 1990 U. S. Census data, aerial maps, tax rolls, and planned -unit- development monitoring reports as well as other pertinent data sources. Un- developed, agriculturally zoned parcels were analyzed to determine their de- velopment potential. Unit densities were assigned to these parcels consistent with adopted comprehensive -plan policies then in place. Finally, the satura- tion forecast of yet- to -be- developed dwelling units was totaled and added to existing 1992 units to obtain a potential total of dwelling units and the fu- ture population estimated to reside in these yet- to -be- developed units. The 191 -TAZ construct employed at the time of the 1994 "saturation" analysis has been subjected recently to a major reevaluation by both the Collier MPO and the Lee county MPO to account for urban -area growth in Collier and southern Lee County. In many instances, original TAZ bounda- ries were redefined to be more compact geographically and TAZ data sets were disaggregated to better represent emerging transportation - related activ- ity within newly permitted Planned Unit Development (PUD) residential, commercial, and industrial projects. In the process of amending TAZ boundaries, MPO transportation planners instituted a renumbering system beginning with TAZ 73 in north- western Collier County. The MPO has utilized the new renumbered network of smaller, more geographically compact TAZs in its effort to predict the di- mensions of residential -unit growth and employment for the year 2030. Ta- ble 1.05 below employs both renumbered TAZs and estimates of residential units and employment. The MPO has estimated residential -units and em- ployment through the year 2030. A map locating the Traffic Analysis Zones within the proposed Primary Trade Area (PTA) for the Colonnades At Santa Barbara is ex- hibited on the facing page. Colonnades At Sanata Barbara Dwelling Units and Population By Traffic Analysis Zone Primary Trade Area (PTA) 2nd Auto 2005 and 2030 Multi - Family (TAZ) Dwelling Units Population Table 1.05 Dwelling Units Population Percentage 2005 TAZ Single - Family Single - Family 2nd Auto Multi - Family Multi - Family 2nd Auto 0 Dwelling Units Population Percentage Dwelling Units Population Percentage 86 0 (Persons) 0 (Persons) 61 166 73 219 86 0 0 0 167 155 377 86 0 0 0 192 49 157 72 0 0 0 193 110 319 72 0 0 0 194 249 731 72 6 20 99 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 198 11 36 62 9 26 31 199 537 1980 70 122 265 33 200 0 0 0 472 1,336 60 201 224 714 62 175 515 31 202 361 1317 62 199 539 38 210 230 763 73 58 145 17 211 327 1008 73 86 259 17 254 17 38 50 152 255 37 256 49 91 50 451 627 37 ,»T N .k'� *Ym 6 �A �" _F+ 3.17 Persons Per Household 3.24 Persons Per Household (PPH) 2.30 Persons Per Household (PPH) Table 2.02 2030 TAZ Single - Family Single - Family 2nd Auto Multi - Family Multi - Family 2nd Auto Dwelling Units Population Percentage Dwelling Units Population Percentage (Persons) (Persons) 166 92 275 86 0 0 0 167 162 393 86 0 0 0 192 61 194 72 0 0 0 193 127 369 72 0 0 0 194 270 792 72 6 20 99 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 198 11 36 62 9 26 31 199 539 1986 70 132 287 33 200 0 0 0 1,384 3,917 60 201 226 720 62 175 515 31 202 362 1319 62 210 570 38 210 231 766 73 62 197 17 211 331 1019 73 86 259 17 254 172 385 50 504 846 37 256 49 91 50 451 627 37 ,»T N .k'� *Ym 6 �A �" _F+ 3.17 Persons Per Household (PPH) 2.41 Persons Per Household (PPH) Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page I -9 Geographically compact TAZs were utilized to facilitate the type of small -area analysis required to analyze the growing facility needs of the rap- idly developing neighborhoods in the area under study. The method employed in this analysis will utilize revised estimates based upon the 2000 U. S. Census data. For the area under study, this ap- proach employs development - potential calculations. It represents the best available forecasting of dwelling -unit growth for new development within the proposed Primary Trade Area (PTA). Market - support - calculations based upon the emerging population within the Primary Trade Area (PTA) will be used further to validate claims as to the viability of uses proposed to be located at the subject Center. The estimated population and job growth along the arterial and col- lector road system providing direct access to the subject site will help define the demographic characteristics of present and future PTA residents. Table 1.05 exhibited on the facing page predicts the likely popu- lation of the Traffic Analysis Zones located within the Primary Trade Area (PTA) for 2005 and 2030. The appended Exhibit 1 summarizes the number of approved dwelling units and permitted commercial development for each Planned Unit Devel- opment within the boundaries of the Primary Trade Area; it includes all Planned Unit Developments within Golden Gate Planning Community Dis- trict (PCD); developments within the PCD are highlighted in light grey. Summary of Findings The principal findings of Section I are listed below: 1. By the year 2015, the permanent population of the Golden Gate Plan- ning Community District (PCD) is projected to grow 64.69 percent from 35,325 persons in 2000 to 58,178 persons in 2015, an increase of 22,853 per- sons according to October 4, 2005, estimates provided by the Collier County Comprehensive Planning Section. 2. Nearly comparable growth will occur in the Golden Gate City com- munity immediately adjacent to the Colonnades At Santa Barbara, the sub- ject of this market - conditions study. 3. There is a clear demonstration of potential market support from a sub- stantial emerging population within a well- defined Primary Trade Area (PTA) that can validate claims as to the viability of the proposed retail commercial uses on the subject site, a parcel located on the northwest corner of Santa Barbara Boulevard and Golden Gate Parkway (CR -886). 4. All roadway segments within the proposed Primary Trade Area (PTA) requiring remediation or roadway capacity improvements have been ad- dressed in Collier County's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) and the current Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) for Collier County. Subsequent sections will analyze the dimensions and likely pace of development for the area under analysis as demonstrated below: • Section II will detail the dimensions of present and future commer- cial development for the area under study. • Section III will calculate and evaluate the demand created by the resident population for additional retail commercial uses. • Section IV will provide Study recommendations. • Section V is an Appendix providing other documentation. Section 1 - Exhibit 1 Planned Unit Developments: Golden Gate Planning Community District wi zi zi w D � � D §I 21 -,I 5 Pi T )\\ ■ 0 z \( w 0 w z 0 < I w 1 0 z z < w 1 < < w 0 0 0 m m m in m m m m m m m - n - ol wi zi zi w D � � D §I 21 -,I 5 Pi T )\\ ■ 0 z w 0 w z 0 < I w 1 0 z z < w 1 < < w 0 0 0 m m m in m m m m m m m - n - N LL. N N O Op a m 0 r U J K m c h WW N Q W O O_ a o Q J I w O 0 U Z N N J W � U i Z O N (7 r Z U U m of O w ry CZ W g U p K ¢ r � r J M Q J F U W Z w w r1'J W W W W N W �w p r °m Q 0 r r O O O O C p y W p U U 01" LL F � O r F O °p P No T r pLL WO LL N O P 0 J J N >O U W p U Q O O LL O_ O J uJ a r O h � K U a N O .- O in r W Z Z g J U Z U m o a e I Z W U U' Y U O O 0 2 b m Z W Z LL' m N P. oI �2I 1+11 mI -1`21 NI Q' EU NI NI N r % r W ¢ w > j F aW K h a N m m O m 0 r W J K m c W O O_ a o Q P w 0 U Z N N W U i Z O N O r Z U U w O w g w U S K ¢ r � r J a O K w w w w W W W W W w W � J Q O O O O O O C U U U U U 01" F m � T r m O P m m O m m c O O O_ N 1� Q P N 0 O p U O N O N W a w W � Y J g n r Z c W C W Sh W b rc >y U p J Q N n v U a `v O i m `c Q d O U U Q 4th' 5[+ Y m JO m i Ig 0 U o O J w C P � my N N m m N P m O CZ W W O W m N T O O O O W WW2 rKJ P W a � O r J O uu(( O m N m N J 20 r 2 m m a n k d m a NI a •o a .fin# P Wo W O N W N j W N yk c O V n � Q O O p O O O U F O O O J m n N Q W N P N p P N Q O P W m n O H N ml N N P N P m P m 1� r OW Z � W W g Z Z W Z Z Z LL W Z Z Z LL Z LL F `c Z W Z N W � Z � 7 ❑ �_ W W ❑ Z U1 W R' J m Z m m U LL' U O O O m O O m O O m O O O O O O m m m m O O m O O O O m O O N O m N N N N N N m • m w > U •u! • • m Z N m U U U U U U p ❑ p ❑ O p W W W W W W LL LL LL N N x O i m `c Q d O U a ! }� \ I (( �ƒ / ~ \/ � \ =»!E I: \ \000 ; ° , 717 \ ® \ a ! ry Oco OU 1:s 0 0, co ❑ In 0 0 IN I At-1111", 0 INTIld 0 Al V, IW 0. 06 IN IN IQ 4 w I- U - o - �? . 6 16 oi IN �2 Al W z Z z w z z w z Z Z z Z z z D z 2 z z IN < 0 0 M < 0 < < 0 1 0 0 2 E W, Z 0 ❑ 2 fn < 0 0 It �S B > < z z 0 3 < z z w w o< < 211, In < W 00 w w W.5 < z z ol < 0 > 0 0 0 0 < a < 0 < 0 0 < < z • W z w 0 < Z < z W W W > lz lz t z z 0 0 0 o o W < < 0 0 < < w w w w m m 0 7, m 0 Ic I In' F , Nm 7.! 0 z C� C� �� I . . om O IN S z -W a ry m O U } I- N Yl P O lD CJ ID Z _.. 0 x y b;gi?'. m K O J Z LLO :..J,`�w o b ° r o W O N F Q ° Z Nil T- J P O O N O ry m N O N O N O O J N fm0 N O°i om? Nti: O > � W N O O O a°O O M 0 ' °o o m _ y w 0 ° o m O I F N l0 N r O O N P_ I W d L b N d N O N N J J O� N ry a i _ l O 0 0 0 °o °o 0 °o 0 0 °o 0 w q 7 w m O o � y Q M N ry m N .°- ~ 01— m W O 0 N d O O O rc U bA m io N 6 J M O W O O O O m O O O 10 W N > F W W 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W Z Z Z Z Z Z� Z Z Z Z w z Z Z w Z W Z g > > z w U z w z z w w m N J z w z Z m m �n m z z U (n z O Z z U - O Q N N P 0 t� O r b O W r M (0 M 1p h m N Ip O O z H O o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 m m O O °o m O O O O O m N O m o O O O O s'e c m 0 0 0 IA w Z w UI W ° M w ll > ° U . ' yKj O w tt w '.-. ¢ m a a m rc vwi m m, rc w¢ d w w ° a Q p 0 , W NaN w ~ ~ w Z r Y J J Y z T Z a ° j < o o T ¢ o �- w O S > a g w a w z ¢ w o a Om U J Z w w Y O ¢ m JO " ° 4i O w W Z 2 O a U O O O m m O 0 g z r w j w i- O R' ¢ K ¢ O a m w D o = r x �' ° Q Ox w ¢ O ° w m z F- Z <n w w O m m U a m w m m N m O y > m Z (7 G o w W �n T O O w w O m O m z z x c9 0 w w z w w O J y r j J J w z m '. ' Z ¢ < J„ Q a < m J m w w m w w m = ? > O 0 0 0 ¢ ¢ Y Y Y Y Y J J J J J J J J J J a O M N N P O N M m N M A=. O P d m m ° °ry °w m m ry o r ° ° ° ° ° r m a aZ a a a a a a a a R tt K K w ¢ m O U a m N x a 0 U _ m Q 4 b N N N [O m W W J 2 v ❑ t rc kj N O U m O O O O N O O � t'RZ ONi T O 1p {!]i N Ubi P VI N� ..fN°5 � n O P.z m °o b b J N .a 5y U, Q y J y) 5t Z Z 2 Z Z W W W W Z Z t� th Z Z Z Z Z W U w Z Z Z N Z U LL W LL' Z Z Z U Z Z Z W Z N Z W z O K J U Z Z U U N U W n Z N Z N Z N I >y� it.., lV 0 N N m O O O O O O O M O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O� O O O o O 5 rc. J� I ji 2 Q 'I LL' j58�! ❑ K LL W O Y w W O in Y < d' Q y h s m m 2 z. y O U 2 Q w G C7 5 m m [7 =, g Z w ' i w o o a Q_ a o¢ w' z z w Q w o N w O 0 0 0 w w w w w w w l m J U Z O z R U K U K Y K ❑ Q ❑ Q ❑ O ll R' W W Q N Q � N N N �- 2 b O W O X K 4 LL LL R R LL 2'. W Q Q Q Q Q Q Q w w W W W U J_ K_ K_ LL' N N N O .O O O } Q Q Q Q Q Q Q 2 2 2 2 `2 2 `C `2 2 2 `2 2 `2 -iL 2 Z Z Z Z Z Z z' a rnr M m . P b❑ r o b N tJ o W O - o N o o , N °0 III . Z F - ..: ry o N o P m o o N I m N p. N N N f W Ory Q W n J ❑ J > ❑ > O > m O 7 O ❑ ❑ J ❑ O , ❑ 7 ❑� O ❑ J ❑ J ❑J ❑ > O ❑ > m O ❑ ❑ ❑ O O O O a ¢ I a l a a a a a a a a> � l a a> l a ¢ a m N x a 0 U O ol f ix'q m I M N zg 0 ❑ KE IT. WIMN 20 It �2 Z z I w z Z il z w w z w 1, z z z z D z z z D z w W, Mi D, D Z 0 , 4, z z 0 z < 0 ED 5z m Z' 0 5z < > < < > x z ❑ 5E o 0 0 0 z z w W 0 > z I w < w o o x 0 w 0 0 0 0 04 < < 0 0 > < 0 1w, L, < w w w w w 0 Z Z z o o 0 0-� 0� <1 Z <1 z z < m Z Z Z u u u u �-c < < < W z z z 0 0 0 0 < X x m < Z z z z z z 0 0 0 0 0, 0 O ol 1 Fx, LL a c5 Lo Y. Is 16 IN �l m Z z z z z z w w 2 z w w z z z z z z z 0 w z Z 0 D D U z 1 0 0 0 . . . . . . . . . . . I 0 < a 0 w 2 < 0 N 0 > 0 0 p O C) 0 I 0 O Z 0 0 0 w < < z z m < < < w w w w w > 0 0 m m w m m m m m m m m w uj Z 13 z c� r 61 ❑ 6 ❑ o ❑ 0 ❑ m m n (\ ■ ®§ ]�( ( Lo j t. : momm ONES ���;� \ N \ ����• ��� \ z \ \ \ < : \<MOOR § \ § § (§ j �� � } \} \ � !o , I �mill, ��• ����. � ����� � �; � j t. {: \ \ \ z \ \ \ < : § \ § § (§ j ( } \} \ O� P O1 CI OBI O� O� QZ W m ❑ ❑ O ^,� O O ❑ rm ❑ ❑ O r m N m m ❑ ❑ ❑ m m OI ° O "� O ❑; ❑ ❑ ❑ J LL 7 > > zsJ 7 O 7 ❑ 7 7 ❑ - > > > > m ❑i m ❑ 7 > > >. �. 2 K. n a a..I6 LL R 2 d m a h n": K ¢ K w K a a a w ¢ ¢ 2 K LL w w, 2 tl a 2 d ry N d O U N O O t t m O O N N m m O O r r O ft O O N N O O O O m O O C C4. m m O O f O 1 1x'O': Q n n u Q m' > >• m m m m o o m m t t�� ww m y n n O O m mp r r r r m m r ry N N O O N N 0 00 V V . ..0 I c cn I I � �O m m O m m T T O O m m O O O O O O O O t t � K 7 m N N N N m m O O .n o o I E O N N m m I'AA E f O y W N N y W w F J r r n n m m F W Q O O O O � Q � i4 — I � �• p O O K i P a a 6 .,.. p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 — I 1p�iWIIIIII U O N N O O O O N O O O m m O O m m i LL O O Y N O Y1 u u� h h i F f fir. O W o h h m m m m i W O O N N ( (mO o iCy K P P m m N Q N n n o o o J o O O o o 0 0 o o a a o o e e Q Q y yo m m m m o o < < Om n n 0 0' N N N N m m O O 0 0 O Oa N N N N m m N N P P� F P Pa Z w w w w W W Z Z Z Z W W W W z z Z Z Z — W Z W W Z Z z z Z Z O W Z L LL W W W W Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W W Z Z W W• U V VI K K K K J J 2 2 Z Z d d' J J z z Z Z Z Z Z Z 7 7 ( (n Z Z N N Z Z Z Z R R' K K K K m m Z Z V Vl N N W W U U U U N N N p w y K . .g. 2 m Q O N N � ❑¢ Q U U W W W W O O O � O O . .� ` ` W ❑ W W ❑ f O LL' Y Y F F E E m m m m ` `_ � � U UI W W ❑ J N N y y ❑ ❑ Q Q O L F F W W W U W Y Y Z Z > Q J 1 Q g g a a W W 1 19 K N N d d❑ 7 7 J Y Y Y N N N N 2 2 t t~iJ N N d d M M N N > N N N N O O R 1.Q Y R' K K W W p p 2 2' N N Y N r Z O r W W V VI W W O O g g S Sj S S S S O O O O V1 O K N N U U' F F J J F F R LL U ❑ di a a E ED R Q W n5 R W O O O O O O W W Q O Z Z Z Z Y Y S SO K K d R' K K Q Q Z Z Z Z Q W H H K K W W F F- y y Z Z U U' n R' W Q G G�.x?+• t- Q ❑ U Q Q Q J J y y W W W W W W , , w w m m m m K K V V' z z Q Q L LL W W l ll 4 4' > > U U 2 2 > > L LL d d d d F F W W w ❑ ? ¢ ¢ w m m O W Z a' i °a•FF1 y [ m J W x d O m U K ¢ ¢ w W W ¢ �W; w w m a z a vb z_ z K 3 W Z Z O O F a ¢ U p W x Z - a O Wp O O N O O ❑ ❑ a F F {` I W Z 1- .+ ` Z (J (� Z 2 Z Z gg gg rr O. m K � � N � m r N N (YI N m N N 4 r l0 N''�3 �� W ❑ 6 Z p, 6 O Z C a W O W N o tE P ¢ g ° W r m o ❑ o ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ '8' ❑ 'E+ t- �' z m a a a.. m a m m N ¢ 0 U Al o Q Q S S N o o n n zO V ' ' owl x m O O t tm0 . .tixi b b H H x m O O F O ` `4atl. F m m m � N E ❑,. m �, N b.{ m m n n ' '+ V Vl O Otiiv d t LL } p p L Od w � o o f� O O LL, O O O O O O q q F P � F � =5 m m rc• o o = J m E rc O O to o om o o o o w n O O 1 10 + w o oo o o E m m O F � � F F O� a F Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W W W WI Z Z L LL Z Z Z Z Z Z Z Z W W z z Z Z Z Z O y U' f f b o 0 0 0 x n n o 0 0 o o m m o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 r E 313 t �1 N f 3 tY N z r w U U U a a ¢ N > ¢ ( (n y y a a W t U W Z �� O Z n • W W U U ( (9 Y Y Y Y W W L LL m m Y Y Z Z m m z z Y Y Y N N Y Y a a • • Y Y Y Y m N ¢ 0 U N g N S y�pQ Ca S ry R N s C § � Ell V F � n e o n U s G C n W % n' E 6 g n f a W 0 � 5 S n F n W Z W s f 7 B O r!YCO�SqI�aRf r!N 1` a11p wa' Igq�pNS NNM1S`IO1 NlV N R N P tl tl' O N � N � N N S 1p� m YI m O N N hllN IAy N v avebNNoma l�ItlAC`gN id �siw m� �aaa`rr F N' M m QN «IVCbOONa�` In N'R 8 mOm NON O pppp pp qM1q ` O q M1 m w � N Ib lm'INN<N SONS C�«gR «g5rm «� a�n'ni�ae`m Ir9 xemamo�$v «'a�� �nl$Ilg v'a I°�{`�IJr wm ryw wm ON m�tl�Y)�CIN'1D ObA1V IAN ��aaaax`s s ran�n�3�SimNo NmNN�mNavwB�iry n$bf�mn anv �M1 2m Ri Vll mm a owmmNmmm� l�al+lw TO�S FI allgp «'k `Oi tNm`IO1101mVANONN« �y�nma ^ r N q ! p y NOINVaN�NOe'mNy0 IONNNM1OnOOm� a & °rv�.m.d�n�r E ZZ —m2E�55 YS ii �Z zNUw�U¢,�m¢�E0 I J f S S � U 1 R 9 B s 6 S � R m y3 aO O V Q a 5 S � '111 1 n o � 'viwn r nnQQ r�� r E $ F N n ! pm n n VV p n m V n v Z E O � 2+ E Q m P O 3 S e r 2 a VO T O N T a p " o E E 5 m 3 p O C V a gP a�a m ,.g g xm Nx £�m T' °o`ONNv " o�uov EEC He m °° U rv0 E v B 'HA ago �- m e�N,Y.o Eg °oEoo's� oa�oo €a �a ➢nnVm °v2Zg �� °IpgEv3i ` c°aWn'o cew�° EE` "c oom Em o- 0 O 3 E S 3 a S Section 1 - Exhibit 2 Collier County Transportation Improvement Program (TIP): Fiscal Year 2006/07 to Fiscal Year 2010/11 Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page II -1 II. EXISTING COMMERCIAL LAND USES Market conditions analyzed in Section I demonstrated clearly that ac- celerated growth in the permanent population of Golden Gate City and the Golden Gate Planning Community District (PCD) demonstrates potential market support from an emerging population within a defined Primary Trade Area that can document claims as to the viability of proposed com- mercial uses on the subject Colonnades At Santa Barbara. Section II will detail the dimensions of present commercial develop- ment in Golden Gate City and the Golden Gate PCD. The predictable desires of the increased population in the Primary Trade Area (PTA) for basic goods and services forecast a steady, incremental development of currently underutilized commercial parcels along the Golden Gate Parkway (CR -886) and Santa Barbara Boulevard corridors con- sistent with the recent patterns in area growth of new residential units. Additionally, office space; repair and wholesale facilities; hotels and motels; entertainment centers; and institutional uses such as churches, nursing homes, and schools will likely be accommodated as well on available land developed, or being developed, for these purposes. tential in Collier County (Fraser & Mohlke Associates, February 1997) estab- lished that new commercial structures totaling 2,672,034 square feet were completed from 1986 to 1995, constituting a 254.08 percent increase from a total of 1,051,637 square feet developed in 1986 to 3,723,671 square feet of commercial structures developed by 1995 (Reference "Table One: Land Use Inventory for Commercially Zoned Areas of Collier County"). Prospects are that a similar analysis for the 10 -year period from 1995 to the present would demonstrate an even greater increase in commercial square footage. Commercial Land -Use Inventory The 2005 Collier County Commercial Land Use Study, prepared by the Comprehensive Planning Section as Appendix A -1 to the Future Land Use Element Support Document, analyzed commercial zoning including the standard categories of C -1, C -2, C -3, C -4, C -5, and PUD zoning as defined in the County's Land Development Code. A list of applicable 2 -digit codes from the Collier County Property Ap- praiser's-Land Use Codes and Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) Codes is provided to describe the listed land uses; all other relevant data is reported by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), and by commercial land -use categories now in effect in Collier County. Selected data derived from the most recent available land -use data collected in calendar year 2005 has been incorporated in an analysis reported later in Section II. Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page II -2 Property- appraisal -based analysis presents certain difficulties in match- ing commercially zoned acreage with acreage classified according to Property Appraiser land -use codes. Consequently, this analysis will limit the use of property- appraisal data to site - specific determinations of acreage and the square -foot dimensions of existing structures only. Commercial acreage and buildings reported by the square- footage of a structure's "footprint" com- prise much of the basis for the analysis that follows. Utilization of Community Shopping Centers for Non - Traditional Uses Countywide, data from the 2005 Commercial Land Use Study suggests that some of the area's community shopping centers are performing a role beyond their traditional function as a site for retail shopping anchored tradi- tionally by a supermarket and a drug store. Determining the motivation of older shopping center tenants to lease space, and why their customers sup- port an older center's non - retail business enterprises is well beyond the scope of this analysis. However, an ongoing analysis exploring the evolving community role of older neighborhood and community shopping center sites under 25.00 acres may well be timely in order to evaluate the importance of these centers in providing non - retail services to nearby neighborhood residents. Evolving utilization of neighborhood and community shopping cen- ters for non - traditional purposes is an essentially unaddressed element of land -use planning in Collier County. In recent years, the use of existing centers by non - retail vendors, many of whom might logically locate their activities in traditional office buildings or office parks, is becoming com- monplace. Although evidence as to why non - traditional tenants lease space in community shopping centers, and why customers support these tenants, is largely anecdotal, the reasons listed below indicate reasons why non- traditional users, like those requiring office or storage space only, are re- placing traditional retail tenants. Reasons given to Fraser & Mohlke Associates by non - traditional tenants for locating their business activities in older community shopping centers include the following: • Desirable location, • Availability of vacant storefronts at affordable lease rates, • Security, • Zoning considerations unique to certain businesses or professions, • Cost of alternative real estate near a vendors preferred location, • Costs related to the construction of free - standing office structures, • Parking requirements specific to certain businesses and professions, Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page II -3 • "Walk -in" traffic supplied by adjacent tenants, • Minimum need for store -front visibility to attract customers, and • Availability of on- premises management services and maintenance. Anticipating New Commercial Uses in Collier County Additionally, Golden Gate area growth may soon result in increased pressures for commercial development along the Golden Gate Parkway (CR- 886) and the Santa Barbara Boulevard corridors to accommodate the goods - and- services needs of a growing population within the proposed Primary Trade Area (PTA) analyzed in this market - conditions study. Extension of commercial development along these corridors will likely be driven by considerations such as the spacing requirements of re- tail /wholesale -chain outlets, the emerging needs of surrounding commercial and residential development, and the as yet unannounced plans of develop- ers of an approved and /or a proposed Planned Use Development (PUD) lo- cated in the immediate area that may yet lead to proposals to zone and de- velop new commercial facilities that are not currently under review by county planners at the time of this writing. Characteristics of Commercial Land -Use in the Primary Trade Area To document the need for new commercial facilities Primary Trade Area (PTA) as proposed in Section I, it is necessary to examine the present pattern of commercial development along its principal arterial and collector roads. Specific land use designations are listed later in Section II. These des- ignations are taken from the Collier County Commercial Land Use Inven- tory (2005). Land use designations are derived from appraisal records and Geo- graphic Information Service (GIS) data provided by the County's Property Appraiser Office, the Comprehensive Planning Section's PUD Inventory, and Zoning Maps. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning docu- ments provide additional information on each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). Commercial land uses located in the proposed Primary Trade Area (PTA) for the Colonnades At Santa Barbara will be benefited by an estimated increase of PTA population that is predicted to increase by 3,518 persons be- tween 2005 and 2030 according to estimates provided by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the development of Collier County's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) described in detail in Section I of this market- conditions study (See pages I -7 -I -9). Tables 2.01 and 2.02 exhibited on the facing page document this growth by each TAZ located in the Primary Trade Area (PTA). Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page II -4 Land uses for the Colonnades At Santa Barbara's Primary Trade Area (PTA), derived from Collier County's 2005 Commercial Land Use Inventory, are exhibited on the following four (4) pages. Each exhibit is accompanied by a facing -page listing of land -use explanations provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser; listed land uses will assist the reader in identify- ing actual commercial activity conducted on the listed parcels or subdivi- sions. As noted above, the list of applicable 2 -digit codes from the Collier County Property Appraiser's—Land Use Codes and Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) Codes is provided to describe the listed land uses; all other relevant data is reported by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), and by commercial land -use categories now in effect in Collier County. Section 5 of this study includes a definitive listing of commercial land uses for the entirety of the Golden Gate Planning Community District. Commercial zoning district acreage analyzed by planning com- munity population is shown in Table 2.03 exhibited on the facing page. The analysis proves conclusively that the population of the Golden Gate Planning Community District (PCD) is underserved by commercial en- terprises providing needed goods and services to PCD residents. The findings reported in Table 2.03 are persuasive in establishing that a Golden Gate PCD resident, when measured by an acres - per - capita standard lacks shopping opportunities readily available, for example, to a resident of the North Naples PCD. Assessment of New Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Commercial Land Uses A careful reading of the commercial zoning listings for land -uses for the Primary Trade Area (PTA) is demonstrated on the four (4) pages of ex- hibits that follow. These exhibits will demonstrate clearly that parcels avail- able for commercial uses in the general area likely to be affected by prospec- tive new commercial uses under recently adopted provisions of the GGAMP, namely parcels within TAZ 199, are largely C -2 uses located on parcels of diminumous dimensions. These parcels are largely vacant, particularly those with dimensions of 0.14 acres or less. Parcels in TAZ 200 now devoted to rental properties, not owner - occupied residences, that will eventually become available for commercial use are unlikely to accommodate commercial structures larger than 2,200 to 2,400 square feet in size. Currently, there are no commercially zoned prop- erties listed in TAZ 200. Evaluating the future uses of these commercially - unzoned properties appears problematic and is well beyond the scope of this study. o. C OM N C d d F W 01 0 0 0 0 7 0f < a Z S LL .EE to N o 0 a LL q CCD y J 7 M n O _ 0 W m N C a ` � J Q m o. C OM N C d d F W 01 0 4 m m � r C � S LL .EE to N o m �p « dUQ q CCD y J 7 _ 0 U a F- U H U Z a C J Z Q O O Y Y W mm Q 6 y Z ti 6 � c c J a v 0 (00 0 o o F4 oQ N � v C d � W W N N o. OM a v F W C � .EE to o m dUQ CCD y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 0 0 0 0 { gyp 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ( 0p 0 0 0 0 0 0 o a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N m m M m M M 4$ 0 0 0 S O O O O O N N N N N N N N t Np N N N N N N N N N m M M M M m M M m m m M m m M m m N N N O m O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N ti ti ti d d (i ti (i d ti ti ti ti b ti (i ti ti d d (i (i d d ti d d ti d d (i ti � ti ti ry c qc (cNp (`cNp (cNp (cNp (`cNp �° {`cNp 'c (cNp (cNp (cNp qcN c{p m (cNp rycN {cNp �cNp (cNp {giNp `cryN (ctpp ('ctp� (cNp (cNp (`cNp {cNp (cNp (`cNp c tS iY U U U U 0 M< U U U U U U (l �! O O D U U O D U U O U O D U 0 N r O - O - O O O O O' � n O O n O O O O r O r .O 0 0 - 0 n W 0 - '0 0 0 �0 0 0 �0 0 0 0 0 n 0 0 0 0 0 Q O O N h LLM'i N m1 N 1n h Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m m m m m m m m v v v v v v v v cv v v m aci aci m cv a a o a o a a a 00 (7 (7 0 0 (07 0 ( `o 0 0 `o � N N N N N N N M O n N N N N N N O O O Z O D O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O o 0 o 0 !!! W!! 12 ! W W W W W! W W W W W W W W W W W m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m L6 N W Yl H h h N W W W W 6 W t0 6 d W f0 6 t0 W W W 6 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C N ` N N v N N N N E W N N d N N N N N N N N M m m m m i m 6 m ,6 m 'm m 6 m m m m m m m m m m m 0 D 0 c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c c N N v N W v N N N N o a a a o o 2 a N 0 N a N a 0 o 2 a N a N o N o N a N a N o N o W 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N a N 0 U' U' 0 ID (D (7 (7 (D (7 0 (7 0 0 0 CD 0 U' 0 0 0 (D 0 0 C7 0 0 rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn w rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn m -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - m-- rn rn m rn rn rn rn m rn m rn rn rn � � � 7 � � � � � � � � � � zv � - � � � - � � � � � P � � � � � � � � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N s rn a rn a W rn w m rn W m W W rn m rn W rn a rn rn m W m rn rn rn W W w rn m rn rn Q 4 4 Q 4 4 Q Q Q 4 4 Q 4 4 4 4 Q 4 4 4 4 4 Q 4 Q Q Q 4 4 4 Q Q 4 4 4 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N u C6 f0 m W C N N d U l0 C C O 0 u L N u7 M N m d m m 0 0 m O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O 0 0 O O fW 0 0 -_ E 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0♦ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7 L fro W 'y N C m m fy� Om G m $ O O N N fp Q t0 i� f0 m m O O O m N O Z O L Y S O Ym O O O O as m CN'! n CN') E N N N N N N m yV 0 A O O O f0! m m M M M m m N N N N m m m M M N N IO N N m M m m m m m m M M m m m d CL m m fo co co m m m m m m m m m m m m co m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m p m m m m M m M m m m m m m m M m d m M m m m m m M m m m m M m m M LL rn N T O! Of an d b r m d m M m m m m m m m am m o m a q` N N N N N d N m M d O d W fO d m d .- m f0 O m M M M N r O � J Q � A = N N N N N N N N N m M M M m Y Y Y 4 0 0 0 e e q Nog 0 0 0 0 00 0 u 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U •' O e h N d d d m O 0 0 0 m m N m d m d (") m m w m a e Oct 7 fV - d - N N N - m d (") Y ; N d fO m d; O N t'1 N m m>,, 0 d C LL N 'O N^ J o a a c -, C7 0 L C U U u 0 W o m E . y C J Z O al N � m d N W J J p rD L W a W W W m E o c of W o 0 . It m N O Y N m C m N N a Q N Vp Y Y m BB 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 22 0 0 a a d U N O G o `0 0 of of m ao ao of ci of of co m ac ai of a v Y W o 0 c o m N ai of m ^ ^ m Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Q Y Y O Y Y O Y Y Y Y Q Y m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m n m m n m m m tt1 m U m m m m n m co co <o 6 fo 6 6 ii 'd so m m 'a fo 0 L6 m — 'n 'o ro m .o m w fc <6 �6 fo 6 r6 `6 t6 r_ C C C C C C C C C C 'C C 'S C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C ti a a a a ti ti ti d E fu ai ai W i d d �� mmmmmmm 0ti (ti 0m 0ai 0m 0 0 ( 0 0 0 (Dti 0 00 0ti 0 CD�3mmmmmm�0 (pDi CaD 0 CD C C C C C C C C C C C C C C � C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W W N W W W W W W W W W M a o a a a a a a a 0 a a a a s a o a v a a a a a 'O a a a a a o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o L° 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00 C7 C7 U' C7 U' C7 U' U' U' C7 (7 C7 U' C7 (� C7 C7 C7 C7 U' C7 U' 0 U C7 C7 C7 (D U' C7 U' 0 0 oNrnrnrnrnmrnmrnrnrnrnrnrnrn rnrn m m m to corn aowmmroeo ao comm o Q m rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn ----- --- - ---- -- m rn m N NO m m m m m m m m m m N m N V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d Im O (O f0 (O (O m m m m (O m (0 f0 (O (O IO m m m f0 m (D IO f0 (D f0 m (G !O m f0 f0 (O m m rn rn m rn rn m w m m rn rn rn m 'T m rn m m m rn 'r rn rn rn rn rn rn m m rn m m H C C � c E N N N N N N N N N N N N N N c y m m g M m d e e O N o O. U Q U' (7 U' c7 C7 U C7 U' U' C7 (7 C7 C7 U' N C9 U C7 (7 U' N U C7 C7 m U' C7 (7 C7 U' (7 U C7 C9 C7 rn C7 �000SoB°0000 o g o 0 0 0 p 'Z O fi Q m a N a m N M M O N M M M M M M M M M M M LL Q N'C m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 J Q Ve 0N U U U U U U U c U U U Vu U) 'Q Y = k 0 � L ao E w > > Z,- � N CL `0 o o° N N � U C (n ar O :E H (a C � 'c E EL L) r O Yl O N O Ol Q N 4 a N C W m C Q m N m y m T y y O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W W •p� m' W Q m m W m N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y_ Y_ Y_ Y Y _Y Y Y Y Y m m m m m m m m m m m r r A r r r r r r r r N N d l0 N N N N N N N m m m m w m m m m m m C C C C C C C C C C c C N N 41 d N d N N N N W 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 '0 -0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C7 C9 U' 0 U C9 C7 (7 0 C7 U 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N m m m m m m m m m m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn rn Q Q a Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q m r m Q M m m r W o m O N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 O O O O N m N N M Q P N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o n a M M M M M M M M M M m m N r r r m r r r M 1 m m M M M M M M M M Q N 1 O N N O O O O O O O O N 1 d d d d d d d d d d d d 0 0 O Q Q O O O O O O O O O O a O U N C O y y d O O a d` o U N N N a w � � � a m a d a � r w LL m L� N N d m m `Yo Y 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M M N N N N N N N N N Q Q m M M M M M M M M t0 N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y_ Y Y Y Y Y Y Y_ Y Y m lfl m m lfl m m m m m m m N t0 d N N N N N N N N N N N N W N N N N N N N N C7 c7 a U C C C C a c a U C9 C7 c7 a C C C C C C C C V C O O O 32 M O O 9 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N m m m m W m W m m m m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a a v a e v a a a a a a of a2 e2 ri n2 a2 r2 n vi n a2 of C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 U C7 u osoosso N m O M O O N O O O O O Q m 0 0 0 0 0 o r 0 0 o m m r r r r r 0 m 0 0 o n n m m m m m m m m m m M M N N N m O m M m M N m O m m N O N r Q Q Q M Co T V V Q N L W N r O O 15 O J J C m C C 0 r O O O t5 GN N 0 0 0, W A W 10 N m m O. 6 G C O. 10 10 N N N N N= 7 N 1� l0 N N N N a d a a a 0 0 T T T 2T T2 yyy LLLLC' a 7 0 aaaaa( ( 7 w m c m wo rn rn rn m rn rn rn m m m m m m m N N N N N N N m m m m m m m N N N N N N N e v a a v v v C7 [� 0 U (7 (7 0 C7 (� C7 (D C7 C7 C7 i °o 0 N M m N N InV r 1 Me r N g O O W O M d c� C O C7 N rn N N a 1� m N a � 1 u N N y C E 0 U 0 2 d c A 2 d d d d d d d m m m m m M M > 0 Omi > '. m O m m N O N r Q Q Q M Co T V V Q N L W N r O O 15 O J J C m C C 0 r O O O t5 GN N 0 0 0, W A W 10 N m m O. 6 G C O. 10 10 N N N N N= 7 N 1� l0 N N N N a d a a a 0 0 T T T 2T T2 yyy LLLLC' a 7 0 aaaaa( ( 7 w m c m wo rn rn rn m rn rn rn m m m m m m m N N N N N N N m m m m m m m N N N N N N N e v a a v v v C7 [� 0 U (7 (7 0 C7 (� C7 (D C7 C7 C7 i °o 0 N M m N N InV r 1 Me r N g O O W O M d c� C O C7 N rn N N a 1� m N a � 1 u N N y C E 0 U 0 2 d c A 2 G o 0 0 0 0 0 0 oaa(o(pp0�0�pp00 Z G L 1A N O N O M (O O O C w CL m r c m m m m p m M M m M M M LL. y m M y M Wr f9 M J CM 0 C W W LL W W W W m M O M t0 f N (D t0 c LL N e n y JN ^ ^ � a m N 7 C O E 2 > > Z 9 r a „ y 2 U) m a`o "6 p O J W W Z F N h pj M N N N O � N 3 x m > > > > m y N N N N N N U N d W m 6 N N N N N `N N d N N N m N o a a a a v v C O o o 0 0 0 0 0 y 10 O a . mmNmto(O J X W ca N H mmmmm(o(0 N y oa a) 0 N T 0 0 0 a C O O C t0 a0 <o a0 y [D tD CO C c N X > C p C O C t a e v e a a v N am T 0 > � � U H m c E q M co e A p oh-;nU aUQ y f-« 7k Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page II -9 Supportable Commercial Uses and Land Use Recommendations Substantial new residential construction, supported by the area's ex- panding roadway network, will likely accelerate demand for accessible, well - located commercial centers providing for the personal - service needs of future residents. Growing consumer pressures generated by new residents will likely foster additional demand for new commercial space, perhaps even exceeding the demand generated by residents being absorbed within the developing neighborhoods in the proposed Primary Trade Area (PTA). The objective of this analysis is to assess the commercial development potential of the Colonnades At Santa Barbara and provide some degree of mar- ket justification. Consistent with this objective, it appears appropriate to de- velop a well - located multi - purpose commercial facility or facilities on the subject Colonnades site near the area's developing neighborhoods. In evaluating the commercial uses presently available to serve the fu- ture needs of area neighborhoods, this analysis has sought to address the following criteria to be employed during any plan- amendment or rezoning process to quantify the actual mix and variety of land uses surrounding the subject site's PTA in order that any proposed uses may be evaluated accord - ing to the following considerations: 1. Adequacy of available infrastructure capacity, particularly roads; 2. Existing patterns of land use in general proximity to the subject site; 3. The amount, type and location of existing zoned and developed commercial uses in general proximity to the subject site; and 4. Other criteria identified in the Land Development Code (LDC). The Colonnades At Santa Barbara site is well situated for use as a mixed -use facility that would allow land uses compatible with adjacent resi- dential areas. Located in proximity to a large platted urban community, it can serve as a transitional facility providing needed convenience services. Listed below are recommended land uses identified with a category number obtained from the Standard Industrial Classification Manuel (1987). Land Use Recommendations Collier County's General Commercial Zoning District lists the fol- lowing Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) groups that can be considered both consistent with the purpose and intent of applicable zoning standards and appropriate uses for development on the Colonnades At Santa Barbara site: • Building construction (SIC groups 1521- 1542); Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page II -10 • Business services (SIC groups 7311, 7312,7334,7338,7342-7389); • Educational services (SIC groups 82 -8249, 8221, 8331); • Engineering, accounting, research, management and related services (SIC groups 8711 - 8748); • Depository institutions (SIC group 6021, 6022, 6091); • Eating and drinking places (SIC groups 5812 and 5813); • Health services (SIC groups 8011, 8021, 8082, • Insurance carriers (SIC groups 6311, 6321, 6324, 6321, 6331); • Membership organizations (SIC groups 8611, 8631, 8641, 8699); • Miscellaneous retail (SIC groups 5912, 5921, 5942, 5992, 5993, 5994, 5999); _ • Personal services (SIC groups7231, 7241, 7291, 7299); • Professional offices (SIC groups 6311 -6399, 6411, 6531, 6540, 6552, 6553, 6712 -6799, 8111); • Real estate (SIC groups 6531, 6541, 6552); • Social services (SIC group 8311); and • Any other commercial use or professional service that is compatible in nature with the foregoing list of permitted principal uses, as may be determined by the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA). Note: The Colonnades At Santa Barbara is ideally located to accom- modate the relocation plans of convenience and drug store outlets that would be well served by a highly visible, freestanding facility at a high- traffic location like the subject site. Section III will analyze retail market demand in the area surround- ing a proposed Primary Trade Area (PTA). Section IV will provide Study recommendations. Section V is an Appendix providing other documentation. Section 2 - Exhibit 1 Inventory of Existing Commercial Land Uses: Golden Gate Planning Community District Appendix A -1 COLLIER COUNTY COMMERCIAL LAND -USE CATEGORIES Note: Three -digit numbers refer to and two -digit numbers refer to Collies 121 Retail Sales and Service 10 Vacant Commercial 11 Stores 13 Department Stores 14 Supermarkets 15 Regional Shopping Centers 16 Community Shopping Centers 21 Restaurants, Cafeterias 22 Drive -In Restaurants 25 Repair Service Shops [excluding Automotive] 26 Service Stations 27 Automotive Sales [1213] 33 Nightclubs, Cocktail Lounges, Bars 122 Wholesale Sales and Services 29 Wholesale Outlets, Produce Houses, Manufacturing Outlets 30 Florists, Greenhouses 123 Office and Professional Services 17 Office Buildings [Non - professional, one -story] 18 Office Buildings [Non - professional, multi -story] 19 Professional Services Buildings 23 Financial Institutions [Banks, S&L's, Credit Services] 24 Insurance Company Offices 124 Hotel and Motel 39 Hotels, Motels 125 Cultural and Entertainment 31 Drive -In Theater, Open Stadium 32 Enclosed Theater, Auditorium 34 Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Pool Halls, Enclosed Areas 35 Tourist Attractions, Permanent Exhibits, Other Entertainment and Other Miscellaneous* 20 Marine Terminals, Piers, Marinas 42 Manufacturing 38 Golf Courses, Driving Ranges 48 Warehousing, Distribution bt Trucking Terminals, Van & Storage Warehousing 72 Private Schools & Colleges 86 Counties Other Than Public Schools Including Non - Municipal 88 Federal Government 91 Utility, Gas & Electricity, Telephone, Water /Sewer Service, Radio/Television * "Miscellaneous" items are listed for reader information only. "Other" code items dQw °o 5q mrw mQ��O�r3 (�3i (L�(r���� minnn8q N A Op�yd �Vpg� ugtyi ivAuJN E mN N�Nry1NN�NNwcyNNt��('� (�dBSN (Yi aS� 2 O � q _.... •O O. Zg$ a m O l? N W W m ci N N co O O O O O O O G O O O G O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 Q C SO m m 7- N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N c dJ 0JbJddd0U0 6000L)0u 060006 0006000 m ol0M, Vci C, m s s 4 i N N 7 i i 7 » > i > >> >> > >> >> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Q N Co O m m N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O O O O IJp 'O � m G S • m S 7 ¢ Nm ZZ o Z oe Z m o o �_— aLL mm ms N O y W `' N m N w N N N N N Ol d n R N N N N N N tO y F W 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y f Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m Y ]1. m m m m m m m m m �p mm ��M ��mamf fflffla mmam R m N N d d m N Y] N N 10 N N N w m Ld m m N m N N m m m m m m m (O m m m m m m m m m m m C C C C C C E C C C C C C C C C C E C C c C C C C C C C C C C C C C G C C C C C C J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J S m ' 61#111441 m S f 4 i mm m m g m CD 00000000000000 (7O(70(7(50a CD co 0000 0000 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m U 32 32 $ ° 0 �0 � °8m $$ m $ o 3� $o $$$ oco00 oO$ Sry Srnm �i� mS' �' �' iS' im° w' �+' �n' rn�� 'iwm�maarnS'immma��rnmm����mwrnm N G H N 'o � NNN NN NNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNNN W C w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w w a w w w w w w w w w w w H Q T z W Im c O e E "' a A c O m o m s 0 C a N N N N N N N (V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o�d d�c DC ,d, cDbbcDa00( oc�c�c�cDc�c�c�0c�cnc�c�0coc�c�cDc�c�c�0000c�c000 C7 aoaa �c�( neOc�c�c�0c��c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�0c�c�c�c�c�c��c�c�0c��c� x Oi EL m C LL m D C7 Appendix A -1 NAMMIXiltmalKa Note: Three -digit numbers refer to Florida Land U5& and rover classification System. and two -digit numbers refer to collier County Property Appraiser's Land Use Codes and Florida Department of Revenue [DORI Codes. 121 Retail Sales and Service 10 Vacant Commercial 11 Stores 13 Department Stores 14 Supermarkets 15 Regional Shopping Centers 16 Community Shopping Centers 21 Restaurants, Cafeterias 22 Drive -In Restaurants 25 Repair Service Shops [excluding Automotive] 26 Service Stations 27 Automotive Sales [1213] 33 Nightclubs, Cocktail Lounges, Bars 122 Wholesale Sales and Services 29 Wholesale Outlets, Produce Houses, Manufacturing Outlets 30 Florists, Greenhouses 123 Office and Professional Services 17 .Office Buildings [Non - professional, one -story] 18 Office Buildings [Non - professional, multi -story] 19 Professional Services Buildings 23 Financial Institutions [Banks, S &L's, Credit Services] 24 Insurance Company Offices 124 Hotel and Motel 39 Hotels, Motels 125 Cultural and Entertainment 31 Drive -In Theater, Open Stadium 32 Enclosed Theater, Auditorium 34 Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Pool Halls, Enclosed Areas 35 Tourist Attractions, Permanent Exhibits, Other Entertainment Other Miscellaneous* 20 Marine Terminals, Piers, Marinas 42 Manufacturing 38 Golf Courses, Driving Ranges 48 Warehousing, Distribution & Trucking Terminals, Van & Storage Warehousing 72 Private Schools & Colleges 86 Counties Other Than Public Schools Including Non - Municipal 88 Federal Government 91 Utility, Gas & Electricity, Telephone, Water /Sewer Service, Radio/Television * "Miscellaneous" items are listed for reader information only. "Other" code items E o M111011111 z;s .O W - a i 1 N N N N N e A 00 O c o o C G C O C G W J V Cp N N N N N N N N N N N N N C UCS CIUUUfSUU(SUU cl o m N 'O t i E 2 O N m N C O H .L C � e E m CL O 0 a BwF;g� m a m m m W 10 fO b 16 N b m m W m m 00000 0 0a 00� 0 a coo mc�c�mc� rnmCn W mrnmrn rn rnwm�'rn�rnrnrnrnrn N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N n CnW mg r W W N N N e y e 60006 0 U U n O' r � � m m «—C 'S EY E m Y ya m Y C $ N VI N C C m « E « �o�oo =mmm N N � ll d m 5 J C O Y W � a �8 W Q N N Sim m W m « m « 000 g� ooc� W rn m 0 W ? f T rn rn m rn rn N NNp N Npp N {Np N N N N N �Np N N N N e 8O N N e8p' M N nnj,, (jJQa�{5 N N e 8pW N O Wn {�r�O nr n nn0 nn n ^m ^ O � n� ^I nN N n l� r 1� 1� 1� f� OWI�v A I� I� n r A I� A NM chi C�+ mehi igi m c�chi C�mmCO me�Chi� O N N l? Cl t7 N N N N N N N N N N N N 'R r t0 -0-0000 O cc O O O O O O O O O O N O e e e e y y e e e e e e e g y q e e e e e e JJbJooJbciOtibd000JdbJdd 3 � > > > >> N Z S A Y W m Im/1 `c m U e rn O r q Z ES mf.om z bsl 0 i W If W ?_c�.� a E E ANN a Nmne�eyi CCi "��'a wac'� xd�daevvaaaada'a ddui ui ° m m N N N N N N N N Ny N N N N�+ N Nr N J m 3mc�mc�a0cq0 00 0 0 o0000000 m ry m m m m m m m m m m m m 9 m m $�$0ED008(D80000a oo00oo on ON ro or o 0 0 0 o no Q n ON o n ro o O n o no 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Nf N O O N h N N O N N N N N h h N N ilf N N O x 1 m w W a W C LL d 'W V m O 0 v e a a e v a v N Co e m N e e e 0 o 6 (b 6t� C7 mC7 x x N e 8O N N e8p' M N nnj,, (jJQa�{5 N N e 8pW N O Wn {�r�O nr n nn0 nn n ^m ^ O � n� ^I nN N n l� r 1� 1� 1� f� OWI�v A I� I� n r A I� A NM chi C�+ mehi igi m c�chi C�mmCO me�Chi� O N N l? Cl t7 N N N N N N N N N N N N 'R r t0 -0-0000 O cc O O O O O O O O O O N O e e e e y y e e e e e e e g y q e e e e e e JJbJooJbciOtibd000JdbJdd 3 � > > > >> N Z S A Y W m Im/1 `c m U e rn O r q Z ES mf.om z bsl 0 i W If W ?_c�.� a E E ANN a Nmne�eyi CCi "��'a wac'� xd�daevvaaaada'a ddui ui ° m m N N N N N N N N Ny N N N N�+ N Nr N J m 3mc�mc�a0cq0 00 0 0 o0000000 m ry m m m m m m m m m m m m 9 m m $�$0ED008(D80000a oo00oo on ON ro or o 0 0 0 o no Q n ON o n ro o O n o no 0 0 0 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Nf N O O N h N N O N N N N N h h N N ilf N N O x 1 m w W a W C LL d 'W V m O 0 Appendix A -1 • • • i •' Note: Three -digit numbers refer to Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System and two -digit numbers refer to Collier County ProeW Appraiser's Land Use Codes and 121 Retail Sales and Service 10 Vacant Commercial 11 Stores 13 Department Stores 14 Supermarkets 15 Regional Shopping Centers 16 Community Shopping Centers 21 Restaurants, Cafeterias 22 Drive -In Restaurants 25 Repair Service Shops [excluding Automotive] 26 Service Stations 27 Automotive Sales [1213] 33 Nightclubs, Cocktail Lounges, Bars 122 Wholesale Sales and Service 29 Wholesale Outlets, Produce Houses, Manufacturing Outlets 30 Florists, Greenhouses 123 Office and Professional Services 17 Office Buildings [Non - professional, one -story] 18 Office Buildings [Non - professional, multi -story] 19 Professional Services Buildings 23 Financial Institutions [Banks, S&L's, Credit Services] 24 Insurance Company Offices 124 Hotel and Motel 39 Hotels, Motels 125 Cultural and Entertainment 31 Drive -In Theater, Open Stadium 32 Enclosed Theater, Auditorium 34 Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Pool Halls, Enclosed Areas 35 Tourist Attractions, Permanent Exhibits, Other Entertainment Other Miscellaneous* 20 Marine Terminals, Piers, Marinas 42 Manufacturing 38 Golf Courses, Driving Ranges 48 Warehousing, Distribution ix Trucking Terminals, Van lx Storage Warehousing 72 Private Schools & Colleges 86 Counties Other Than Public Schools Including Non - Municipal 88 Federal Government 91 Utility, Gas & Electricity, Telephone, Water /Sewer Service, Radio/Television "Miscellaneous" items are listed for reader information only. "Other" code items E G z `O O W a '1 A z7R �I V! V c zI `o m N mN(7Ne m ,Q�mj,m m nm,�Qmj mQ�j,A A Ns�mj ��ssNjj OB Q�Aj 8ApN Q�pjNC!1 jQa{ aRNp 4mN� � �N 1 ^ ^A O tD N � 1q(�� Nm SV 1Q� � 1mA ^A �m tG � l'i/OaCy.�i(Sj p N ! �J CJ m N t7 � lm�l [7 N l�l Cl m 111���� l'1 N Cl l7 N N N f�l Cl mm m m lOn1 e e a e e e e e e e e e e y e g e e q e q e e e e e e e e e e e e y q e e v e y e e q e bJbtititid8titidtidododdodotiJticSbtiJJJJbtiootiJdtiUtiJoti ii %i m O N O O N O O N a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 � � � � � �" ;: �! �2 N F N�! N N N N N N e V a OsO � zCC S. og m � C Y= a< m Y Z ieffgs §-osS §s$`sgx�ji NaA s m��3sZy^ cei W W IL W !,C L W W W W W W W S M e W IL S IL m m m� mmmin m�nm minty NNmmm o Nnsa�ammmmmmY(gm�� E E� � g� FF�� BmZit aam99m ws�� 8 ��aS�sSo cL6 e e N d N Pl K Cl 6 t6,6.6 .6 Cl 6 f6 6 W 6 K N m m n n n A n A OI t7 N Ol C1 O`p r n b n r n A A h 1111. L L L L L L L L Y Y L L L L£ Y Y > n Y Y Y �[ Y Y 151aIa aOM!PA 1. 3i��m��03¢a�IT itI SN a5a�Mm M� N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Cky N N N N N N N . CI E C C C C C C C E C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C o'm aom am�m � m 0 m o'mm o� m ao om m o� m m om m om m og m og m o g m 0m m 0 110 0000 o 00088m to m m m m 0 m m m m 0m m m m m 0 d m N o$�$$000000oco000c�j$OD oo00g00 O �IN R R R R N R R R R E R R R R N N RR N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N I YIN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C O F f, N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa a aaaaaaa as as mama a mom �gS m chi m m M m m N N N c o o U U U E E <;m N O O N N N ass C6 r n Y Y Y FD Lm L L C6 N ci C C C "162 O C1 C7 s ono n n n NNyN N N N N N N eaa C �E s e E C E N m N h N N N H m N m m H m N m N N m �n N to N N N m N VI m In N h in m N N m N$ coo o m W O (7 U' (7 U' (7 oU' C7 C7 (7 C7 U' c7o c7 UC7 c7 U' (7 C7 C7o o(7U C7 C7o U' O000C7o C70007U U' U' 'U C7 0 6 V C7 (7o C7 U[7 C7 C7 C7 oc7 (7 C7 C7 U' c7 (7 oc7 C7 c7 C7 C7 (7 (7 c7 oC7 U' U' OU (7o C7 C9 U' 000UC7 U' (7U W (7 C7G a rn W CL W C LL ID m m O 0 Appendix A -1 COLLIER COUNTY COMMERCIAL LAND -USE CATEGORIES Note: Three -digit numbers refer to and two -digit numbers refer to Collies 121 Retail Sales and Service 10 Vacant Commercial 11 Stores 13 Department Stores 14 Supermarkets 15 Regional Shopping Centers 16 Community Shopping Centers 21 Restaurants, Cafeterias 22 Drive -In Restaurants 25 Repair Service Shops [excluding Automotive] 26 Service Stations 27 Automotive Sales [1213] 33 Nightclubs, Cocktail Lounges, Bars 122 Wholesale Sales and Services 29 Wholesale Outlets, Produce Houses, Manufacturing Outlets 30 Florists, Greenhouses 123 Office and Professional Services 17 Office Buildings [Non - professional, one -story] 18 Office Buildings [Non - professional, multi -story] 19 Professional Services Buildings 23 Financial Institutions [Banks, S&L's, Credit Services] 24 Insurance Company Offices 124 Hotel and Motel 39 Hotels, Motels 125 Cultural and Entertainment 31 Drive -In Theater, Open Stadium 32 Enclosed Theater, Auditorium 34 Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Pool Halls, Enclosed Areas 35 Tourist Attractions, Permanent Exhibits, Other Entertainment and Other Miscellaneous* 20 Marine Terminals, Piers, Marinas 42 Manufacturing 38 Golf Courses, Driving Ranges 48 Warehousing, Distribution & Trucking Terminals, Van & Storage Warehousing 72 Private Schools & Colleges 86 Counties Other Than Public Schools Including Non - Municipal 88 Federal Government 91 Utility, Gas & Electricity, Telephone, Water /Sewer Service, Radio/Television * "Miscellaneous" items are listed for reader information only. "Other" code items Z2 o� N N Imp, < N � in W V O t7 t7 N V m n Q C1 m c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m 93 C m N m N m m m m .q N Y1 N m m m N ISl m N m N C U(J (J U(J U(JU U(JU UU U U U UUU U MUM 2. Y/ V m<< E" �pp F m mmmm d OJ� n% n n n n n n n n pi n P- n n n n Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y $°d $�a�aa�aaaaagaa�aa N N N N y N� N N N N N N N N N N N N N ci N C C C C C C C C C C C C E C C C C C C C 7 M D D M 7 m m a m m m is m m m u m m c7c7oc7o0c7oc7c7c7oc7oc7c7mo0m c c c c c c c c c c c c 0 0 b o� so p6 oU 3 l$�� g, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (7 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n r n np n n p n n N N N N N p p n n n r n n n n p n n p r np N N N N N N N N p N N N N N N N N F S 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N {/J r G - F i T M C E SEE aria` N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N c� c� m c� c7 c7 c7 c� c� c� c� c7 c7 c7 c7 c7 c� c7 c7 c7 c7 c7 c7 c7 o c7 c7 c7 c7 c7 c7 c7 c7 m c7 c7 c7 c7 c7 c7 N N (j UUUU N_ E�I�i rp r m m m N N N m m m m m me� e%, ebi chi c�. m� 0000 N y Q g Q (j UUUU N_ E�I�i N N 2 m H '6 z r m W W C7 b 0 N O O O N m U z E E 0 m m 5 poi o6 Y S C S-2 O m 0 gra 3g m yym O00 (a7 N N N N a r a � a e a a N fb 0 0 0 0 a c7 c7 c7 c7 N NNp N [y N_ N N N N N a r a � a e a a N fb 0 0 0 0 a c7 c7 c7 c7 :. M a R c LL 'i V m 0 0 $$ N_ opop _ mm mgmm m m m m m m me� e%, ebi chi c�. m� m 0 M W Q N N N N N N fl W 00 vv 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O a F m Q g Q Q Q Q Q a Q U8 Um V Ug (Vm�C>U m q pU�Cg7 Q N EO y N N m N N O N N M o a c g m m g m m s W o - � 's m m a of � o �'ssssQ�_oQo pj 07 m W m W W W t7 c7 C6 m m 0 0 0 r m m m m m c7 o mc7 o c7 c7o c7 c7 c7 0 m a m a pmmmyyaam m� x 0 0 3 3 0 3 Omp (S7 00 0 0 O0 0 0 0 0 0 cc N N NR N (y N N N n N n N m m m m m m m m m N N N N N N N N N m N m N m m m mmmm m N N N N N N N N N O O < O O< O O V O V m I x000000000 :. M a R c LL 'i V m 0 0 HIM X111 O ((pp 1p N N N N m e N$2 G 9 e e 0 0 0 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9 m C In b In b N 1A N m In Ul N m 1n N N h m �O N N NO c (5(i(iJciJ(StiJ(i(itiJtibtitititiJ mmukukur Q � m M m V m E; N m m h m zz n n n n % n% n �' n n n & N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N c c YE c c e c c c c m c sc c c c e c c J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J J m Em w m m m m m` a m m m am m c�oac9mc�000�$oc�c�c�ooc�c�c� s° m ! M�n! ° COD CID 1m01o01 N pp pp oo R p p N QN N N m YY r C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N S N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C O'm m mmm mmmmrnwmm wrnaimmrn rn F C e E c E 19 m o N N Hw N N W S m n 1 N N e � 0 O O O C N m o o m- e a N q e e J m ti vti d a C4 >0 �� Sm i N m m W CD m N m Z ° E ss - - -s� m m m r Y Y Y J J J J mom o c�moo 0 0 N N N N a N�p a N r a c�7 u 3 a a a e N N m m m m R (D (D (D a m S 8 m 'o U z E m J m a cps N is o CPs y 4 r 2511M0g w°��im mmm m Mm�mi c�immmco m N N N N m O R o e N N N N f�! r N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e e e e e e e e e U U M m N ; 7 :::� ::: � �2 N N N N 0 m Y o W m o Z m N yam+, J f9 c r c s�ppy�ys�� §�a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ni rica � vi oim vi of C�7 OOO c7 (m700 (7 (D(D0a c p� c� c pp� h o C.0 pO 1 cD mp (D m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a a a a a e a e v M. OI a N c LL m m0 0 N Nm fmy I NNp N N N N N a N�p a N r a c�7 u 3 a a a e N N m m m m R (D (D (D a m S 8 m 'o U z E m J m a cps N is o CPs y 4 r 2511M0g w°��im mmm m Mm�mi c�immmco m N N N N m O R o e N N N N f�! r N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e e e e e e e e e U U M m N ; 7 :::� ::: � �2 N N N N 0 m Y o W m o Z m N yam+, J f9 c r c s�ppy�ys�� §�a Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ni rica � vi oim vi of C�7 OOO c7 (m700 (7 (D(D0a c p� c� c pp� h o C.0 pO 1 cD mp (D m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a a a a a e a e v M. OI a N c LL m m0 0 Appendix A -1 COLLIER COUNTY COMMERCIAL LAND -USE CATEGORIES Note: Three -digit numbers refer to Florida and two-digit numbers refer to Collier Coun Florida Department of Revenue [DOW Codes. 121 Reta 10 11 13 14 15 16 21 22 25 26 27 33 122 Wh i 29 30 Sales and Service Vacant Commercial Stores Department Stores Supermarkets Regional Shopping Centers Community Shopping Centers Restaurants, Cafeterias Drive -In Restaurants Repair Service Shops [excluding Automotive] Service Stations Automotive Sales [1213] Nightclubs, Cocktail Lounges, Bars esale Sales and Services Wholesale Outlets, Produce Houses, Manufacturing Outlets Florists, Greenhouses 123 Office and Professional Services 17 Office Buildings [Non - professional, one -story] 18 Office Buildings [Non - professional, multi -story] 19 Professional Services Buildings 23 Financial Institutions [Banks, S&L's, Credit Services] 24 Insurance Company Offices 124 Hotel and Motel 39 Hotels, Motels 125 Cultural and Entertainment 31 Drive -in Theater, Open Stadium 32 Enclosed Theater, Auditorium 34 Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Pool Halls, Enclosed Areas 35 Tourist Attractions, Permanent Exhibits, Other Entertainment and Other Miscellaneous* 20 Marine Terminals, Piers, Marinas 42 Manufacturing 38 Golf Courses, Driving Ranges 48 Warehousing, Distribution bt Trucking Terminals, Van & Storage Warehousing 72 Private Schools & Colleges 86 Counties Other Than Public Schools Including Non - Municipal 88 Federal Government 91 Utility, Gas ix Electricity, Telephone, Water /Sewer Service, Radio/Television "Miscellaneous" items are listed for reader information only. "Other" code items z'`osl LL 31 O N V ASR Vl J ii E �y a°ro I N a U) C O m m n m 222X555 O e a y e 0 0 0 a a a=UUUUa�=a U CS m m m > >> O m N m N^ O O O m n O C) i N 0 (SGV m N W W W CO N N N p ro m ac ro ro ro ro ro ro c c c c c c c c c ________ mm�� aaaaaaaaaa m2 =mg�mm C9 (D (901 0000 m m m m m m m Wm W W W W W W W g N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v a a a a a a e e a N< b N V lrq V N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W �I 0 0 0 0 0 Y Y e a y e a y y v a a UU UU UU(JUUU U U gg� ° §RMS N< 7 N N m R m {y m DmD Nam�m� �n W m8ms smm m�myay -o mssm `s m�mm�sm�o c c c c a v c c< c c c COo0aaca 0000 80111009 MOM NNNNNNNNNNNN N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNNN v a a a v e v a e a a v a O� C C 7 e 0 O 6 c U' C7 U' C7 C7 070007 C7 'f d UQ m C7 C7 U UU' (7 U(7 C7 C7m C7 C7U C7 UC7 U' C7 C7 C7 07074. 3 s 0 "2111 1 m mani, ei, arl, �I ACC! N O N N O O O O O O O O lV 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C i� U m m m O a ` w � m�s r W cJ N N a m N N N N N N N N N N N c c a c c c c c c c c c =___ =___ 00 00 q� ao�oa � m a�o00 m�mmm�mmm�m� 000$0 0a acl 0oCD0CD cD0 o N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N NNNNNNNNNNNN v a v v v a< e a e e a of ai ^ of ai m - -- 070007 C7 UC7 UC7 C7 U' C7 a W N N m N N N M b 0000000 � y E! 3 Ld H> N W m > m O m m N n O a a ¢ W r 2 ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ c c _ _ a NN�$NaN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a e a v v a a (U7 (7 C7 C7 G(7 UUN f, a W C LL m m 0 O Appendix A -1 COLLIER COUNTY COMMERCIAL LAND -USE CATEGORIES Note: Three -digit numbers refer to Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System. and two -digit numbers refer to Collier Country Property Appraiser's Land Use Codes and Florida Department of Revenue [DOB] Codes. 121 Retail Sales and Service 10 Vacant Commercial 11 Stores 13 Department Stores 14 Supermarkets 15 Regional Shopping Centers 16 Community Shopping Centers 21 Restaurants, Cafeterias 22 Drive -In Restaurants 25 Repair Service Shops [excluding Automotive] 26 Service Stations 27 Automotive Sales [12131 33 Nightclubs, Cocktail Lounges, Bars 122 Wholesale Sales and Services 29 Wholesale Outlets, Produce Houses, Manufacturing Outlets 30 Florists, Greenhouses 123 Office and Professional Services 17 Office Buildings [Non- professional, one -story] 18 Office Buildings [Non - professional, multi -story] 19 Professional Services Buildings 23 Financial Institutions [Banks, S &L's, Credit Services] 24 Insurance Company Offices 124 Hotel and Motel 39 Hotels, Motels 125 Cultural and Entertainment 31 Drive -In Theater, Open Stadium 32 Enclosed Theater, Auditorium 34 Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Pool Halls, Enclosed Areas 35 Tourist Attractions, Permanent Exhibits, Other Entertainment Other Miscellaneous* 20 Marine Terminals, Piers, Marinas 42 Manufacturing 38 Golf Courses, Driving Ranges 48 Warehousing, Distribution & Trucking Terminals, Van & Storage Warehousing 72 Private Schools & Colleges 86 Counties Other Than Public Schools Including Non - Municipal 88 Federal Government 91 Utility, Gas & Electricity, Telephone, Water /Sewer Service, Radio/Television * "Miscellaneous" items are listed for reader information only. "Other" code items a 7 zo i 1 O m m I a a N C C F m C C � E m ac°�a N S CD m r N N a N r l aim' x C- m ( my m N yp m m N m m O^ CC�JJ �q�y (CarV�.��(gaa���� m N O O m m m m 0 6 m �- N Y G C- 0000000000 a a a a a a a R i i m ' m m e te s N O O O! m m N N N d ym m m Fri LFG 3 S U U p W mmm t��e� LL L Lp LL LL LC 1� 5- LO s� 6 �e:ccc ~aa a » »> �mmaaa aqa Hill E I . . . . -9 2 2 � w mi:— rt�em�� n n n n n r n n n n N N N N N N N N N N � {cNpn cc% m n �cNpn f�ep�i c� m m N N N N N N N N N N i v a a v e a a a a a i ro.^mm��mmm�?i a0(D CD (D 6 x O N ppO }gqa� jj}pgpgyq$JJ5 N N m N N QmN1 p� N N m mC yO W N N J Q i 0 C w b rn t�l W Q LL H mC p J � N I a a N C C F m C C � E m ac°�a N S CD m r N N a N r l aim' x C- m ( my m N yp m m N m m O^ CC�JJ �q�y (CarV�.��(gaa���� m N O O m m m m 0 6 m �- N Y G C- 0000000000 a a a a a a a R i i m ' m m e te s N O O O! m m N N N d ym m m Fri LFG 3 S U U p W mmm t��e� LL L Lp LL LL LC 1� 5- LO s� 6 �e:ccc ~aa a » »> �mmaaa aqa Hill E I . . . . -9 2 2 � w mi:— rt�em�� n n n n n r n n n n N N N N N N N N N N � {cNpn cc% m n �cNpn f�ep�i c� m m N N N N N N N N N N i v a a v e a a a a a i ro.^mm��mmm�?i a0(D CD (D 6 x W" O O ppO }gqa� jj}pgpgyq$JJ5 }Q3{ N N QmN1 p� N N m N N N i Appendix A -1 Note: Three -digit numbers refer to Florida Land Use and Cover Classification System and two-digit numbers refer to Collier Couinly Propea Appraiser's I,and Use Codes and 121 10 11 13 14 15 16 21 22 25 26 27 33 122 Wh 29 30 Sales and Service Vacant Commercial Stores Department Stores Supermarkets Regional Shopping Centers Community Shopping Centers Restaurants, Cafeterias Drive -In Restaurants Repair Service Shops [excluding Automotive] Service Stations Automotive Sales [1213] Nightclubs, Cocktail Lounges, Bars e5ale Sales and Services Wholesale Outlets, Produce Houses, Manufacturing Outlets Florists, Greenhouses 123 Office and Professional Services 17 Office Buildings [Non - professional, one -story] 18 Office Buildings [Non- professional, multi -story] 19 Professional Services Buildings 23 Financial Institutions [Banks, S&L's, Credit Services] 24 Insurance Company Offices 124 Hotel and Motel 39 Hotels, Motels 125 Cultural and Entertainment 31 Drive -In Theater, Open Stadium 32 Enclosed Theater, Auditorium 34 Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Pool Halls, Enclosed Areas 35 Tourist Attractions, Permanent Exhibits, Other Entertainment Other Miscellaneous* 20 Marine Terminals, Piers, Marinas 42 Manufacturing 38 Golf Courses, Driving Ranges 48 Warehousing, Distribution & Trucking Terminals, Van & Storage Warehousing 72 Private Schools St Colleges 86 Counties Other Than Public Schools Including Non - Municipal 88 Federal Government 91 Utility, Gas & Electricity, Telephone, Water /Sewer Service, Radio/Television * "Miscellaneous" items are listed for reader information only. "Other" code items [7 N N N t7 N a NO N g Ng 0 a g N O O N O iD ^ O_ O n O_ 0 O E R R R�am ��ma ���mmRnyn��N��i y�y���j�n�nm y���nm {nm n�np Z O IO N <m N ro iOD I N I N tm fG (OD tD t0 (O tD f0 N t0 t0 N N N N N N W N (O ml 0 10 ,a a LL V V O a tNp .m- V V V a V N m V N qq N OO pp t r C O O O O O O C G O N O O C C O O n w N N 00 do 9�Cc C - 77 N-777 77 7 77 o 0 0 0 0 c o m a n c o❑ N N 777 �° JtibtitiOJc JdObdtitititi ititiJ a a"aDaa Radlaadda tici m m m Yp� n ffi m O 9 0 t0 W W l0 0� � m t0 O� m O� 0' m R Pal aadd N m m< tV tll N p o > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > m > > n 7 i LL 3 � Jm =M O✓ U O _. ¢ ¢ m ¢ ¢ ¢ m a _ T1 G 6 mq � !xm�q m 1�q U m V V V¢¢¢ O¢ D C mm S m OY> O O nm 3 N z C C "6 S 2 p m C 'g 00 y Na Nmn -NmaNN �N (naNa n �d 000000 O IL o - - mi m Oi Ci Ci OI vi v 6 e vi ui Yi 10 'i tC m ® ® ®@®®® @Q a a a a a a 5 5 q ffiffi �pq qq -� > > > 7 7 > > > 7 > > 7 > > 7 > > > >a > > E m Z� Em a�qs S Ss 4w m r� m C CT w m'a00'mm m mm �ma o�m� . 511 m m o m Ti ass 0 tczcccEc cEccztcc m m a_aa& a g� nn onn nn annn nn nn z_.'.'.•m 3. mN $(nmm mm m'mNNm$i (nmN mwm $$ E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E ♦y as maaaa aa�aaa a�aa ma a N Np�cy°.i pN (p �pp �Upp ci c4 (yw L) zpp(zpp g J N N N lm N N N Itl N N Iq N N N N b N N N a m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N w N N N N H y« a m a m a V m a { o { mp { p mm tp { mp {�p (7 V a d ap t ap �Np t Np N N N Np N N ow Q. C CL p 0 Im H C _ C = q '4 'c E N N IO N tO N N tO N N N o 6Ch6Cb6 rhrh d77ccc 00N ar o ((N pp an N M aUG as U 00 U 0 0 a 0 U 0 0 0 a CD 00 U 0 co p M000000000 E n N 10 U' C7 x x x x L m cc IL c LL m a m 0 0 Section 2 - Exhibit 1 Inventory of Existing Commercial Land Uses: Golden Gate Planning Community District W F Q Z W D J O 0 m m �y y� sn�mj m 1888N� (mp m O N 8r Cl 180 1� m ,Q�mJ, ,,,QQQ�mj ,��Q -j mS 888ON m d �(}'CQ�S{l �f`Q�lp1 r 1�4�jj' fNp i7 �Itp m m l Up pi R N N N O Q 0 m 0 S O N p p Ol m mm oOOO dp dp od Js' od pV p� o dQ dp dp p E t� q pj N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N to L7 09t� N R I A R A J AI t0 t0 A A A A R N m m m me�i chi �i mt�i �ic�i Timm mm z o N LL m O (Ntl N OI m m N d N N N O p N d d a b � J Q v C cn N m .- 7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N Nc a66 ci0 UUU000000UUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU CiUUUUUU00000 X 0 0 0 m E � E E `c c `c 0 m c c rc rc c rc `c N E rc c rcq rcm rcm c rc c c c c rc 'c c c rc c N m N N W W m m m m m N W p N tp m W u t0 m r I� 4 O V U tI U U U U d O V U U U V U U N U V U U U Y U tO m m m nl V m r M Y! (7 m m m W m W m N N W m W W W W m N W W m W m m m m m 0 W > > > > > >> >> > > >> > > > > i > > > i W m m W > i > > > i N LL a + O O O O O n O O O O N O O O O O O O O O O O n O O (JE o m d o N 2'O o Z.m v m o d) or n m N cro N � y aQ Vm @ N M d N tO n m y N N N N N r N t7 d o N N N N N N N Cl o o N Y N V N � N N mm m m m m � 12 � t2 � m m m m m 0 m N m mN m m N ttttt��70 � � W 3 Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y 65 Q1 m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m I0 m m m !O m m m m N N d d b L6 Le N N N Ld L6 N N h VI Y) N L6 N L6 t0 t0 t0 t6 t0 O& (O fG t0 f0 CD (O tC t0 6 to d (O C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C m 0 0 0 m 0 m m m 0 m m m 0 m m 0 m 0 0 m m m 0 m 0 m m 0 m 0 m 0 m -6, m 0 0 0 0 0 m m rm Ta rm W (D m rm m m m rm m m W m rw m m m m m a rm m rm m mc�� �� c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�0a(5cDcD0cDocD0a0c9cDcD 0cD00coco0o000(30 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C G C G C C C C C C C C C C C C C W 0 0 0 m 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 m m 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 m 0 0 0 0 0 0 m m 0 0 0 0 0 0 C'n C6 7 7 D7 7 m 7ma70 7 a( 7 07 ( 0 C a C7 ( C U a C(70 l C0 U 00 C CD a l0 000(000 a U C CD 000 a (D o C 0 rn m m m m rn m m m rn rn m m m m rn m m m m m rn rn m m m rn rn rn rn m m m m m m rn G rn rn m m �i rn rn rn m m r rn rn m m rn rn m m m rn rn m rn m m rn m rn m m m m m rn rn rn m m m m m rn NF r r r r r r NC ^ N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N d C m t0 t0 tO t0 t0 <O m t0 tD t0 (O tO (O t0 w m m .. t0 .. m . b t0 . t0 t0 m 0 (f) t0 (V tp (V m t0 t0 tD (O N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N c. c y m m m rn rn rn m m rn rn m m m rn rn m m rn m rn rn m rn rn rn m m m m rn rn rn m m m rn m m m rn m m G H d d d a d d d a d d d a d d d a d d d a d a d a d d V d a a d a d d d a d d d d d d F cc ce C E IC N (V r (V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N W o pt C70 NC7 C7 C7 (7 (7 C7 C7 C7 (7 (7 C7 C7C7UC7C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 CS C7 C7 C70 C70 C7 a C70 C7 U' d UQ a N R C70 wo ? o C7 C9 C7 C7 C7 C900 C7 C70000(D CD 000000 CD C70 C70 000000000 d m a N C LL d W C d v C7 C ? G g i l l l m pm to g S man Qo .._.. Z O tai �i t� �i m tai m 1107 m O W CL 0 LL a' rn N rn m rn e e ry N N N N N '000 do oc cod oo W p W J C N W q t W Q LL N 9 W W C E 2 9 v� V) a `o 0 N V C O H a C 7 E W W W a L) 4 N N N N N N N N N N N CS CSUUUUUUUUU O O Ill Cm Y O< �O W� 0 0 `o g m m m m rn m m CO T 10 N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m m mas m (9 m m m !0 m N CO CO = Cll Cll CD CO fO t0 CO m m m m m ai m m ti m m 0 aaaaaaaaaa C7 (7 f.7 C7 U' (7 (7 (7 C7 C7 0 m m m m m m m m m m m 0 0 o a a o v v v o a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 00000000000 rn rn rn rn rn rn m m m rn m rn rn rn rn rn m m rn rn m m N N N N N N N N N N N t0 CO t0 t0 CO t0 f0 CD CO CO t0 N N N N N N N N N N N a v v v v v c v e v a a a N N N N N N N N N N N N O C7 C7 U' C7 U' (7 (7 V• C7 C7 (7 U' N WIWw. 0 o g N N N N N m m n m m chi �ia�cwi 1100 � m NO m n W d t0' rn m m C7 e O d CO ? M 0 - 6 0 0 - OO C4 mmm I? C2 d i d UUUU U U O U • N m r V > N d w m d> 8 m r m Y E ° m U Y Fn _ �^ 0 n c d Y m d Q 0 N Y O Y N N N 'i m m E m m t o c c U c c a y $ a o m U' U J C 0 00 C N W Y B a B O m C (J O N N O Y Y 6mm tp tp N C C C (7 (m7 f7 C C C m m m a g 0 000 0 m e m a a m m e m m C7 C7000 0 (D 0 0 0 >k v < v d d d C7 G7 C7 tt tcg trail mo etlld moomvlr d oo oNO�°� 00 N N C7 m� t0 m m m m m m CI m m m m m m m t�l m Q t7 N CC1 f? Ch N N N N N N N N N N N N N (O d d a a d d e d d d d d a d d d d d d d e d ci U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U U .E �CNp Z E E CNp C Cm C (CNp Cmm C Y (E mCm 0 C qC N (CNp (CNp C U O D U m U U U U 4 U U U O D U r O D U m>> >> O CO O O O O O O O O O O O O N N O O � 0 0 0 Z 0 n Y w C2c m v r v y � o a Z N N N Y Y Y 5 f _O mom E1= O Z $ m U U U o r o p y 3 3 3 v o" `0 Z Z Z m d N O w E E E dulm dhwvYi `m EE E�Nmd rn mrt�immddd d m `0 0 o Y Q Q Q d d d d d d d d d d d d d lq O O O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y w C9 m m m CO m C➢ M m M M m m m m m C9 m ma W N N N N N N N N [V CV N N N N N N C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C j m m m m m m N m m m m m N m m m m m m m aaaa0000000CDaaD0aaa0 r�C7 (7 C7 C7 C7 U'UC7 (7 C7 C7 C7 (7 l7 U' O(7 (7 C7 U• S9 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C m d m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m g a 32 :2 a a a g g a a a g :P :9 N o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Tl7 (7 0 0 C7 O(7 0 U' (7 C7 C7 0 0 U (7 U' U' 0 U r n n n r p n n n n n r p n r r r r p r r n n n n N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v v v v e a a v v e a e M°4 .... v v m N N lD N uI h N tll h N N N N N N N tO h CO N N N N N i(I N V C7 f7 U' U(7 C7 U• 'U (7 C7U U' C7 C7 U' C7 C7 (7 C7 U' C7 C7 V of N IL c LL N a C 0 0 i3 a —Z O i W 0 0. LL c N 0 W N LL IN Q Q N n N N n m m Q N ^ m m m m S m O O N ��mmmmmmm mm mm mmm mmm���� Fnrmmmmw�3��r.��� c'�m'�'m`opi'ai'e�immmciOi`m mmmmnot m`opi c`%.'c�cu'nm`c�'c%i c1bn m- A c�(7imnc�mmM �m''(�im c`Oim O m Q t0 tp O O O [O'1 p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 N N N m m tG Q S�! �! `N' �4 ��n Q V N m�e �-, 2 0( f N V omen inOo dJJJJJJJJdJJJJJJJOJJJJJJJJJJJJdJJJJJJJJJJJJJ Cp Q �p W W S m Cm W m C W � C�pp W W W C' Q O f0 O O m 85� m° �i m W m C m mC Q lq� 10 --- Q S 1p m O N m S t0 25 chi W Q n W W W Q W W W m W W W W W N Q N N pi ' (0 N (N e O m m Q> m N Q N N [0 V n a W w m n N C C O O O 2 2 N `o 5 Cn nn m pp+ o o Y N o O Y Y_ a v1 O o{ C a N a N C C m Y L W as m 7 Z n U °c ma c a 0 L) n 7'S acd mm3 OW O cmv o 33 `c Z �. C C m �p N t0 n m m m m m Q A N m Q Z W W (^� 2 Z U O U (mj 3 ?i W n m n 0 Z` ; Y m Y S Y fL Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y m Y Cm y _ U N Ne O m O m m m y C p C p Z N Z Z _ S m LL W W LL LL W W W U EE Q N O c ¢ Z U Q Ep m Li Mn l oO ;p N Y a N O d O o Q 0 W e n n 6ci of Co vi vi of oin ci of ci el m'i 6m0 c ry O N m O y of cri ai vi C6 66c 0 L Y C L L L L L C L L L C L L Lm m Y Y Y Y Y Y 6 A A A m W Lo Y Y 6 6 1 Je Y JL Y Y Y Y Y Y W W A m A m A A m A A A A m m 6 m m in- � m m m Q 6 d d d n 6 m m Q Q m m m m m m m m m C 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 D• G G 6 6 d d N 'Ni N N N N N N [V N N N N (V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N (V N I N N N fV N N 1 N N C11 ci C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 7 7 7 7 7 7>> 7 7 7 7>>> 7 7>>> 7 m m a; ti m m m 6 o m 6 6 m m W N VA N N N N m m N 6 W A .qA i N N 6 N � W 6 A N N cc C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C G C C C C C C C C C C C C C C m W W m N m m m m m W m m m m W m m m m m W m m m m m m W'm m m m a m m a m m m W m m W C m C m o a a O a a a a v v a v v m p� :2 32 o a a g g v a a C p v 00 0 co U' (7 (5 U' (D 0U' U' (7(7 C7 U' (717:7(7 U' U' (7 U' co (D U' a0 U' 0 (V 00 o� N F N O U) = C O H r n n n n r n n n n n n n n n r n n n np r n n r n n r n n r n r n r n n n n n p r n n n n n N N N N N N N N N N ON N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N v e e e a vi c e e e v v e v e v e e vi c e e v v e o v e a v a v a e a v e a c a a e e v m o m mmm N N N c o o T m N J J J E m C• U N O O N N N O O O n cri co Y Y Y m m m m m m 6 6 6 N N N C C C ai ti d m m m R a v x0(07 r n n N N N N N N N N N O O O N N N m m m Q Q e _T � C C 7 a C c (� N N N �(1 N N V1 N N N h N O N h h N t(1 N �p N N VI N N N O N N N O N N u1 N N O N y 1? 19 W coo a Y. O) m IL A C LL m c d C7 5���ry� Ms ^Z G ` N`�m vim maim 63` MN"�iN ooi `ai `�mooi `e�im O W a 0 LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o m C d Q NC W! N N m T m N N'q m N T N b T m N m T N m C U U U(.1000U UU U U U U U UUUUU n LL N 9 c a Cm C C8888pp�p 8 pS 8Sp m 4 m N N N N e O m V O d � E a a m 7> m q c m c9i Z9 �e d m'n m a aw mn.- cl N N N N 0 m 6 0 0 N o d ` 0 0 n 0 0 oNd 0 y o 0 0 0 0 N m� : m m e m d O 6 i M M M M M M M M MM Mn M C,6 M M M MM r n n r n n n n n r r n n r n n n n Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m Ip W N N d d d W N d t0 N W N d d d d t0 N u n n n a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 0 d d N d d d d d m d d N d d d d d m d U' (7 U'U C7 C7 'U U' C7 C7 U' (7 (7 C7 C7 (7 C7 C7 C7 (7 0 m d d d m d m m d m d m d d d m d d d a g o d o v a o o a a a v a v o a o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -o 0 0 C7 (7 Uf7 U' 'U C7 (7 0 U' 0 0 U' 0 0 U' 0 0 U' C7 p }, p Gry r n n n n n r n n r n r r n n n n n n n p N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N H d Q N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N« N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C a m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m t- W C � c E c E W O aa C700(D CDU00 0U co 00000 U0' 0 U N n r r n eeye o F- U N a ¢p {py� N (Upp (yp N yO ci fV N)> m N m N m IA m in m m m m m N W n n N N N O q m m 0 0 v a N n r r n eeye o F- U U UUp a ¢p {py� N (Upp (yp N yO ci fV N)> U U U e f m m N m N v1 N N Z N m w W W N a fdJ N m Z ° E 0 d m m 0 r Y Y Y Y m m m m M M M 0 m d d D A A A 'U C7 0 0 0 2 2 0 a a a 0 0 o c o C7 C7 C7 C7 O O O O N N N N m n r r n N N N N N I N N N N N e N W N n c a 0 m' mmm m a e e e N t0 g N w m m m d m 0 0 0 0 O (7 U0 17m CP CO U i ti r m o V z Z E 0 U m d m a N o � O r Opp n 8O8 SoS Q�1Q� O mm � ppppw N oyeoy N QyQy N t0 (mm+I m m m 0 m� Oml m W m m m m m m m m m mcyimmm dim mm W N m m m m m m m m o I N N N N N N CO n 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 e e e e e e e e e U U U U O D U U U aT I(1 0 V N N t0 m N m N N; d E p —.. 2 o ow O m 0 IL LL (C� d J Q r N d c Q CO) O O 8 S S O Q Oo Sp O O mi �in cY'im� n �m� m m m m m m m m 0 m f0 o m m m m N n -- O V- OO 0 0 0 N- o e e« m o o e c d U U U U a d d U U N m O O m C C m 0 °.'am °m� 10 $ fee U m m N m>>> O m C'r m N N O O O m 0 W N N N N N N N N N N C O. m m m rn rn m m m m m F N N O Yl S O mmN lm g°� V N O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O m a It e a a v v e e e v q UUCSUCSUCSUUCSUU O n t0 0-0. f0 O O O°irn O N Or N O C7 N (V N 1: " m � CN•V O, CW m O � r m V m N t0 m O m N m G O O O D p O O O O S O (dmm m m mmm N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m m m m m m m !!1 m m m m C C C C C C C C C C C C m ai m m m ti m m m ti m m C C C C C C C C C C C C m m m m m m m m m m m m O O O O O O O O O C c�cac90 00 0cDcD cDcDcD N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N e v e v e a v e a e a v m O r N� Om p N m Nq m cnim m cm+� n O N N O O O O O O O O N O a a a a a a a a a a a a t c `c rc E `c E `c rc c W q mU O p a O O O O O O O O O O D C O U W c O N m d O o c a` m r U m m a w W a d m n lL m N N a 7 Old � O r � r N m C m n m m N N N N N N N N N v m m m m m mmmm m N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m m m m m m m m m m m m C C C C C C C C C C C C m m m m m m m m m m m m rm m `m 0 rW m m rW a 0 c c c c c c c c c c c c m m m m m m m m m m m m D D O D D O D O D D O D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Dca0c70m(Dwc70mc7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N e a e c a a e v e v a e T O C 0 77 c7 U (7 c7 c c c c W C m cm mmmmnmo O 7 7 7 r m_ 0a c70(7 U 0 (D 7 � c7 (7 c7 (9 C7 (7 c7 C7 C9 (7 U(7 c7 C7 c7 c7 O. L) 4 m 0 UUUUC700C U' m UUC7 C7 U(7 C7 U' c7 c7UUN Uc7 (7 U' U' (7 U' UU U' C7 c7 x a N_ COO O C�1 O O O rn N m m V N m N N lU N o 10 m a m r M N m o m o m o n a a d a a a a m U 6 U m > NO m m > m O m w N^ O O O Z V J J O d m CQQ O U N N a��a�xx N� m m rW m m d d d d d m m Q ¢ ¢ C C W W a L W W m W a a 'a a T T T T T 0 a a a a a 0 c7 m m m m r m m m m m m m m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a v a e e e a c7 C7 c7 C7 U' c7 c7 U' c7 c7U U' C7 U IN m CL t0 C LL m 0 C 0 0 c 00o U W or `� O_ v E Z O O CI `N J J N C7 Cm SN Ito 4 C W O p t�p �srsso Y N C N N N N L mmmcimmmm ga le ro Old 16 'd 6 'd `D m m m m m m m m m ro CD 00m a 0 c N 0 m m m m m d 0 N D D D D D D 32 D D 'O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c�cvc7c�cD mc�c�c�c� 0 0 o�G m m m m m m m m m m N �... N N N N N y Y N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N C O. m m m rn rn m m m m m F N N O Yl S O mmN lm g°� V N O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O m a It e a a v v e e e v q UUCSUCSUCSUUCSUU O n t0 0-0. f0 O O O°irn O N Or N O C7 N (V N 1: " m � CN•V O, CW m O � r m V m N t0 m O m N m G O O O D p O O O O S O (dmm m m mmm N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m m m m m m m !!1 m m m m C C C C C C C C C C C C m ai m m m ti m m m ti m m C C C C C C C C C C C C m m m m m m m m m m m m O O O O O O O O O C c�cac90 00 0cDcD cDcDcD N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N e v e v e a v e a e a v m O r N� Om p N m Nq m cnim m cm+� n O N N O O O O O O O O N O a a a a a a a a a a a a t c `c rc E `c E `c rc c W q mU O p a O O O O O O O O O O D C O U W c O N m d O o c a` m r U m m a w W a d m n lL m N N a 7 Old � O r � r N m C m n m m N N N N N N N N N v m m m m m mmmm m N N N N N N N N N N N N Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m m m m m m m m m m m m C C C C C C C C C C C C m m m m m m m m m m m m rm m `m 0 rW m m rW a 0 c c c c c c c c c c c c m m m m m m m m m m m m D D O D D O D O D D O D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (Dca0c70m(Dwc70mc7 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N e a e c a a e v e v a e T O C 0 77 c7 U (7 c7 c c c c W C m cm mmmmnmo O 7 7 7 r m_ 0a c70(7 U 0 (D 7 � c7 (7 c7 (9 C7 (7 c7 C7 C9 (7 U(7 c7 C7 c7 c7 O. L) 4 m 0 UUUUC700C U' m UUC7 C7 U(7 C7 U' c7 c7UUN Uc7 (7 U' U' (7 U' UU U' C7 c7 x a N_ COO O C�1 O O O rn N m m V N m N N lU N o 10 m a m r M N m o m o m o n a a d a a a a m U 6 U m > NO m m > m O m w N^ O O O Z V J J O d m CQQ O U N N a��a�xx N� m m rW m m d d d d d m m Q ¢ ¢ C C W W a L W W m W a a 'a a T T T T T 0 a a a a a 0 c7 m m m m r m m m m m m m m m N N N N N N N N N N N N N N a v a e e e a c7 C7 c7 C7 U' c7 c7 U' c7 c7U U' C7 U IN m CL t0 C LL m 0 C 0 0 a E z'`o8 O f0 IL 0 LL ti N m n N N N N W C d V Q W C N c w L W 1 Q co 9 c J y E 0 2 a O N N F U C U) '.O-. n n N N r N La m c g C7 m m N N N N N Ogg O� m N S �SS8SS0g�0 e e e e e a rn rn rn m m rn rn rn rn N N N N N N N N N N r'�f°y$$inmmmo� -- M.- N e 0 0 � N ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° a a a a a a a a a a N N e O m m N N n e m N O e m n m m N O O O f m m N N N d yd W 0 n o N E E 0 0 U U O w a a a a m cty g ff P _ m m d 00 LL LL LL LL a N N 0 LL e y LL --U 6 a. t 2 2 2 P r= M� DC j _ -aaaa E E E E a a a a a m E E E p E m m m m m m U U U m L t t m m m d m m m m m m m m m m r n r n n n n r n r N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N m N N N N m m m m m m m m m m N N N N N N N N NN _ c o, m m m m m m m m m m m O L v v e e e v e e v v e F W T cm C c N ONE 'E E (b m r mmmmmmmmmm c E N E N E W O Ol C7 Oa C7 C7 (7 (7 (7 C7 C7 C7 C7 C7s aUQ v cam a co c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�c�if 3 3 n m ? eQ�a�ajj N m m m 8 a coma a N m e O rn m m m N N m m rn N N N umi N N N N ° > > m O N No°o3, 0� N N r O O 0; N m N O m N m m N N e O e ? U U a coma a {000 N N m > 9 Ol > > > > 00 O N O O m p 8° ni N N m m N N a a fag 'a N f a 0 0 Soo a voi N N N m m N N N v a a r Fi m C O (j a 0 m m J O > maw g° m 8gm N e b i mmm m N N N N cvn m �i cvi mmm m N N N N c v v v m m 5 a CN7 C�7 NU' y 0 C co 0m k O p r N N r �S r (pNy n m p N N S S N o N N N N S m m m m m m m m m m m N N N N N N N N N N N rn u�mNm � oomOn R ° ° ° ° ° ° ° ° O ° ° 7 m n>> 7>>> D D a a m m a a a a a a a C C C C Cm -g -E C N O O O O O m O O O N N t7 N a a ° m T T T T T m d a T °i m m m m m� a a o m �goo`d g�a�, =g = m m m m m N rn rn Ol O) W- a Q m n n r r n n m N N e m m t U U U I o$ d m `d `d `m `d `m d d d `m c`c `c c`c c"c 'cccc U U U U U U U U U m U m m m d dd `m m m m d E E E E EE E E E E E U U V U U U U U U U d m m m a w a m m m a m N N N N N N N N N N N (m m m m m m m m m m m N N N N N N N N N N N a e a v a v e e a v e CN 7 N N C7 N N N CN 7 UN ' N N C7 N 0 j O 7 0 7 00 O O 7 O S 0 7 O U O U 0 7 O 74 0N O S I m m I v v O O Ju m 8 7 J I O O ME Y Y m m c "c A � m a a m m n N m a a N N epi m I N N I < a N N 66 k T 0 W a W c LL W W m 'o W O C U- 6 c m v O 0 N C O N Q� YJ f8O7 N O Q }Q{5 N � � 8 N V8 p QSm O N p p ON t8NV N N tO Op O O Op OS O Cep ``�d0 't�Q0{ 8N 8 8QNV � � � � � � O 00 N 8 O y }QQ�Np �Op (p ( mp N (pOp t�p�ppp {m{Oppp N N N t0p �p 8N pQQOtQ�I l�l NO O p�p N 8� ?jjj y� (tpy9 E n r r r n r n n r n n r r r n r n n r r r N 10 N 10 Y1 N N N Vl N� h O I(I N N O h 1[1 N 10 (O 1D t0 (D [O tD N N N N N N N N m <O ^ Z O� t0 <O f0 tD t0 tC t0 t0 t0 b t0 t0 N t0 1O O m - a •o LL O O < Q C V O N m< O d V d N t7 1�9 N O V C t0 Q p Q p 0 N N C ti ti 7ti 7ti 7ti C)0 N 7ti 7ti ti ci u C) u 0 a 7 a a a a d a d d d a d a U U N � ti ti C) c c c E c c c c c c 'c c n m v � ii � v tai v m A C rn >^ N m Q LL N 'O C d O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O O 0 0 '. r O� U O N O m U L m T T T T T Q W W O (O N 0 0 m d m m m m m ¢ d n n c c m m m m m m U Q Q 2¢ 2¢ m ¢ 2¢ m c r 5 o o m N mm mm U o U U p O O p m n 9 a O O c o m m m m m m m U m m E m L„° m m N o n A Ym N m Cm Y D m m m m m m UU U U U U 2y'O °caDaDC a 19 DD D Dc °c DC co ° ° dr m m m d `n a m Nv�n mn "Nme�n co 2 r.2 a s vl [n vl w 0 0 0 0 0 0 d m i 0 -° O d a O N m N a M 6 V N u Ll N N N O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y ]L Y Y Y Y m W n %%% %%% m m mmmm m m m m m m m m m � m m m m m m •% W J J J J J J J O C C C m gym, 1~�0 C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q i Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q E ,� N N L t tL�% y y L N `O m lE !NuQ N �p !mNQ W (E pN IE tyU m N N m iryryi�� W �m W W N N N W N N N W F m m m m m O Y N W 15 m y m m m m w m w m 'm °o w w m m aSaadaa�aSa a ada Up 2L oo °nn a m �^'� 1° W Of m Q 6 DI O) ml OI U T OI O OI pi O O. O) Oi U O) OI > 9 D_ D_ D D O O L C C C L .0 •C •C •C 'C m m (A (n Z$ Z' i' C N Z' °o °o L' C C 0 m E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E 8° o o U u U w 0 z z a a a d a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a a N N N N cg 0 u ON ♦ 0 �f ^ f ` f � H N N N N VI N N N N O N N t0 N VI N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N O N fp0 w w N N N N In N �O N N O �O �O [D t0 O t0 t0 t0 t0 tD N N N N N N N N O tD t0 f0 N N Q N N N N N p y y y m m f7 (") f�l m CJ m M m (a+l t+l m tp+l M Cl Y V sF < N N 1Il N N N N 10 t0 yO d � t0 �O t0 (O f0 f0 t0 (O t0 f0 t0 N t0 �D tO t0 (O t0 t0 �O t0 N (O tO �O tO N N N N t0 t0 tO t0 �O N t0 (O N N N N N N N N �D t0 N N C tD N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N A CL N O� m W W p� O D✓ O m O m Oi T W m O� O� Oi O Of O VOl N 00 N �� � N I T O C •aC M Im i d N �(I N N rp IO {N O N N N 0 N C E M N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N o N N N N N a o 00In N N N N 76007000 d W o2�66 CEiQ C7 C7 UC7 U'UC7 C7 U C7UU UU UC7 U C7 U 07'4R• b(6 6 6 6766 6 6}676700 z 0 1 N C7 a N U' U u N C7U C7 UC7U C7 C7N u N UC7 x W O C U- 6 c m v O 0 O7 d a C LL A m c v C7 5� SnSQ RRb QSCN NYr 0 �1pN a NR Sb S s 8O o�m �O M(gi(tpp O -°N � ! 0� I b N �OO B R �O Ht�m p Sm O N b O O [l i N N O ONt^�1 1 fh J CJ Cm N N (O r N N N m m m m m m a c LL O r C5 C4 p C W L AS C N N N LL N U U 0= S O O D O O D O w w a a w w�p am� aA a a a a ap a a a a a a a a wpp S E ci ti ff a C) A � Oni N 0 y¢ yr� �O C'1 b O N S 8 8 y 1[ N N N� N r m N O p m O O O N m N O V O 0W 1 1m � b r N V b b O m7 Or l b N O N N !z p (O N ID j ; t00 cc l0 a Cl Q LL N m b m m N bF-H h N N �- m m m m d ym t Q A m N W� l0 a a L c L L c E 7 m ai r Z m o 0 o m m m m m m g 0 0 0 0 0 O %% N m d m m `ca '� o A ocd m 000mmmmmm 1° `o m J 13- � � a�bN a a a CL Fb Lo m m m m m A m a m' ro 0 0 u w w z F L d d m h Z O O W Ov { LL Yq Y Y U U U U U U U U U U U m =t t'.m -c .animal al� m m m n `"°ot 16 m ,5 m % 0 0 0 0 0 0 ro m m m mN2¢ @ c i�f7 m m V y Om C C A i t L~ O r m m m 2 w w w° °o °oS d E a 3 3 3 3 3 3 Y O m D 9m O O O A C T N w an po ° J 0U C N C1 % C r a a a a a n n n n v o a a a a a A o 0 o c a o o w worm UUU w wwwww C z zz C7C7[7 0000(0? °`D 0d to c O O S1 }�j f0 �p b Q+ T Of m O T t0 b b YI 1p t0 N b b b b b b b b b b b b b b b N N N � Q N N N A N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N J X H N w 0 V C b b b p N N N N N t`J M t0'1 A N _ c o J y � N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N cc y O d r 0 (n Q C C N X C 3 0 0 0 o rn a rn m rn m rn rn w rn m rn m m m m m o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 p 0 O C Z m Z, C C V F cE C E y N N O7 d a C LL A m c v C7 Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page II -1 II. EXISTING COMMERCIAL LAND USES Market conditions analyzed in Section I demonstrated clearly that ac- celerated growth in the permanent population of Golden Gate City and the Golden Gate Planning Community District (PCD) demonstrates potential market support from an emerging population within a defined Primary Trade Area that can document claims as to the viability of proposed com- mercial uses on the subject Colonnades At Santa Barbara. Section II will detail the dimensions of present commercial develop- ment in Golden Gate City and the Golden Gate PCD. The predictable desires of the increased population in the Primary Trade Area (PTA) for basic goods and services forecast a steady, incremental development of currently underutilized commercial parcels along the Golden Gate Parkway (CR -886) and Santa Barbara Boulevard corridors con- sistent with the recent patterns in area growth of new residential units. Additionally, office space; repair and wholesale facilities; hotels and motels; entertainment centers; and institutional uses such as churches, nursing homes, and schools will likely be accommodated as well on available land developed, or being developed, for these purposes. tential in Collier County (Fraser & Mohlke Associates, February 1997) estab- lished that new commercial structures totaling 2,672,034 square feet were completed from 1986 to 1995, constituting a 254.08 percent increase from a total of 1,051,637 square feet developed in 1986 to 3,723,671 square feet of commercial structures developed by 1995 (Reference "Table One: Land Use Inventory for Commercially Zoned Areas of Collier County "). Prospects are that a similar analysis for the 10 -year period from 1995 to the present would demonstrate an even greater increase in commercial square footage. Commercial Land -Use Inventory The 2005 Collier County Commercial Land Use Study, prepared by the Comprehensive Planning Section as Appendix A -1 to the Future Land Use Element Support Document, analyzed commercial zoning including the standard categories of C -1, C -2, C -3, C -4, C -5, and PUD zoning as defined in the County's Land Development Code. A list of applicable 2 -digit codes from the Collier County Property Ap- praiser's-Land Use Codes and Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) Codes is provided to describe the listed land uses; all other relevant data is reported by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), and by commercial land -use categories now in effect in Collier County. Selected data derived from the most recent available land -use data collected in calendar year 2005 has been incorporated in an analysis reported later in Section II. Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page II -2 Property- appraisal -based analysis presents certain difficulties in match- ing commercially zoned acreage with acreage classified according to Property Appraiser land -use codes. Consequently, this analysis will limit the use of property- appraisal data to site - specific determinations of acreage and the square -foot dimensions of existing structures only. Commercial acreage and buildings reported by the square- footage of a structure's "footprint" com- prise much of the basis for the analysis that follows. Utilization of Community Shopping Centers for Non - Traditional Uses Countywide, data from the 2005 Commercial Land Use Study suggests that some of the area's community shopping centers are performing a role beyond their traditional function as a site for retail shopping anchored tradi- tionally by a supermarket and a drug store. Determining the motivation of older shopping center tenants to lease space, and why their customers sup- port an older center's non - retail business enterprises is well beyond the scope of this analysis. However, an ongoing analysis exploring the evolving community role of older neighborhood and community shopping center sites under 25.00 - acres may well be timely in order to evaluate the importance of these centers in providing non - retail services to nearby neighborhood residents. Evolving utilization of neighborhood and community shopping cen- ters for non - traditional purposes is an essentially unaddressed element of land -use planning in Collier County. In recent years, the use of existing centers by non - retail vendors, many of whom might logically locate their activities in traditional office buildings or office parks, is becoming com- monplace. Although evidence as to why non - traditional tenants lease space in community shopping centers, and why customers support these tenants, is largely anecdotal, the reasons listed below indicate reasons why non- traditional users, like those requiring office or storage space only, are re- placing traditional retail tenants. Reasons given to Fraser & Mohlke Associates by non - traditional tenants for locating their business activities in older community shopping centers include the following: • Desirable location, • Availability of vacant storefronts at affordable lease rates, • Security, • Zoning considerations unique to certain businesses or professions, • Cost of alternative real estate near a vendors preferred location, • Costs related to the construction of free - standing office structures, • Parking requirements specific to certain businesses and professions, Colonnades At Sanata Barbara Dwelling Units and Population Primary Trade Area (PTA) 2005 and 2030 Table 2.01 2005 TAZ Single - Family Single - Family 2nd Auto Multi - Family Dwelling Units Population Percentage Dwelling Units (Persons) By Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ) Multi - Family Population (Persons) 2nd Auto Percentage 166 73 219 86 0 0 0 167 155 377 86 0 0 0 192 49 157 72 0 0 0 193 110 319 72 0 0 0 194 249 731 72 6 20 99 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 198 11 36 62 9 26 31 199 537 1980 70 122 265 33 200 0 0 0 472 1,336 60 201 224 714 62 175 515 31 202 361 1317 62 199 539 38 210 230 763 73 58 145 17 211 327 1008 73 86 259 17 254 17 38 50 152 255 37 256 49 91 50 451 627 37 3.24 Persons Per Household (PPH) 2.30 Persons Per Household (PPH) Table 2.02 2030 TAZ Single - Family Single - Family 2nd Auto Multi - Family Multi - Family 2nd Auto Dwelling Units Population Percentage Dwelling Units Population Percentage (Persons) (Persons) 166 92 275 86 0 0 0 167 162 393 86 0 0 0 192 61 194 72 0 0 0 193 127 369 72 0 0 0 194 270 792 72 6 20 99 196 0 0 0 0 0 0 198 11 36 62 9 26 31 199 539 1986 70 132 287 33 200 0 0 0 1,384 3,917 60 201 226 720 62 175 515 31 202 362 1319 62 210 570 38 210 231 766 73 62 197 17 211 331 1019 73 86 259 17 254 172 385 50 504 846 37 256 49 91 50 451 627 37 3.17 Persons Per Household (PPH) 2.41 Persons Per Household (PPH) Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page II -3 • "Walk -in" traffic supplied by adjacent tenants, • Minimum need for store -front visibility to attract customers, and • Availability of on- premises management services and maintenance. Anticipating New Commercial Uses in Collier County Additionally, Golden Gate area growth may soon result in increased pressures for commercial development along the Golden Gate Parkway (CR- 886) and the Santa Barbara Boulevard corridors to accommodate the goods - and- services needs of a growing population within the proposed Primary Trade Area (PTA) analyzed in this market - conditions study. Extension of commercial development along these corridors will likely be driven by considerations such as the spacing requirements of re- tail /wholesale -chain outlets, the emerging needs of surrounding commercial and residential development, and the as yet unannounced plans of develop- ers of an approved and /or a proposed Planned Use Development (PUD) lo- cated in the immediate area that may yet lead to proposals to zone and de- velop new commercial facilities that are not currently under review by - county planners at the time of this writing. Characteristics of Commercial Land -Use in the Primary Trade Area To document the need for new commercial facilities Primary Trade Area (PTA) as proposed in Section I, it is necessary to examine the present pattern of commercial development along its principal arterial and collector roads. Specific land use designations are listed later in Section II. These des- ignations are taken from the Collier County Commercial Land Use Inven- tory (2005). Land use designations are derived from appraisal records and Geo- graphic Information Service (GIS) data provided by the County's Property Appraiser Office, the Comprehensive Planning Section's PUD Inventory, and Zoning Maps. Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) planning docu- ments provide additional information on each Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ). Commercial land uses located in the proposed Primary Trade Area (PTA) for the Colonnades At Santa Barbara will be benefited by an estimated increase of PTA population that is predicted to increase by 3,518 persons be- tween 2005 and 2030 according to estimates provided by the Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) in the development of Collier County's Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP) described in detail in Section I of this market - conditions study (See pages I -7 —I -9). Tables 2.01 and 2.02 exhibited on the facing page document this growth by each TAZ located in the Primary Trade Area (PTA). u T .0 E E 0 O c C C N a m O d C d 1 J C A �V E E O U N O O N A Np aR+ C Q a c c 0 i h S N a Y u O O Y as 7 CL d au V Y N 1, M O GC N O ?' V F r C C a7 d v1 O. O N W No �O � r N V1 00 %n �M N N O N M ZO r %a r M N in N R yj M aC 4 N .D 'n ad a n ri r �p y r In No tM r 00 r h M r r r O O O O O S O O O S O O N 5 0 0 0 m S 0 n N S 0 0 0 0 0^ N S O g 0 0,46 v1 C CC CC �n C O M NNSO LnW 80r N r p N M M OR Op N O OR — � �oD;�O N � M M SO r M M M v M %c V N N N 7 O P N 00 w O% W O N V •- O r O N N V a N b N S O N �O a P � �� O n� N qT N O r N C CO r a0 O� N w1 M G OD O C C aC ^ IV M 000 S 0 0 T S 0 0 CD 0 M N) N Vf fV INt C a0 Nl,. C C O O d' co M r N O O. SON yr v MM�n Nv100 NN0 N N %Q �v -IT m �O m -A' K �n SON 'cr 00 t+l M N P DO aC r Q. N MI n �D N b O'n 0,W NM N of 0, Ln NOD C? N OO N %0 Mr ID aO hN 0w NN m W1 OCO Q O N M M OD ri N M N 1� O O N 0% N N N N 00%C Na 00 M 0`O ODm h M vN t 10 01 Vn V a0 M N h �O N% N �+1 �• fV Y N S O� � %00 S O O O N 0c0 O, NPP Y O� b v 0 r ac 6 N N N C N N N �OMOp N�O� Oro Ln V M GO M1 b CL a � 1-! 00. � CL o_ n m A o r v v v v u v UdU dU W V i0 w ri av N C 6 t F QoQ� DO O Ln N mtn 0 M N N N Ln r r Q O O O O O N O O N O O O N O O O 00 O N N M N O Ol OD Ol O Ol N 00 V — V w O Ol O O b n M ONO N h N T Y N r N Q Vf ANN O,N V N M D n O N T O O M ao N N 0I O N OD O. op a0 M 000 r N N 1D N O 7 0% ' N 00 a00 N N IT � vj N N Q V cC N C d OJ c d r Ol a O u a qC is G C W E O V C 01 -° E v y E 0 E 0 O C O c V D N 0 C An d A R � E 6 0 — O m " C w 0 O C V J a O u 0 m c 0 -00 O C N N 0 Ja e O .a V O ' c c C N Ia d � q E o E a 0 r N aU U U U U vO V -° •V U CL Eo E a o Q V cC N C d OJ c d r Ol a O u a qC is G C W E O V C 01 -° E v y E 0 E 0 O C O c V D N 0 C An d A R � E 6 0 — O m " C w 0 O C V J a O u 0 m c 0 -00 O C N N 0 Ja e O .a V O ' c c C N Ia d � q E o E a 0 r N Colonnades At Santa Barbara Market - Conditions Study Page I1 -4 Land uses for the Colonnades At Santa Barbara's Primary Trade Area (PTA), derived from Collier County's 2005 Commercial Land Use Inventory, are exhibited on the following four (4) pages. Each exhibit is accompanied by a facing -page listing of land -use explanations provided by the Collier County Property Appraiser; listed land uses will assist the reader in identify- ing actual commercial activity conducted on the listed parcels or subdivi- sions. As noted above, the list of applicable 2 -digit codes from the Collier County Property Appraiser's—Land Use Codes and Florida Department of Revenue (DOR) Codes is provided to describe the listed land uses; all other relevant data is reported by Traffic Analysis Zone (TAZ), and by commercial land -use categories now in effect in Collier County. Section 5 of this study includes a definitive listing of commercial land uses for the entirety of the Golden Gate Planning Community District. Commercial zoning district acreage analyzed by planning com- munity population is shown in Table 2.03 exhibited on the facing page. The analysis proves conclusively that the population of the Golden Gate Planning Community District (PCD) is underserved by commercial en- terprises providing needed goods and services to PCD residents. The findings reported in Table 2.03 are persuasive in establishing that a Golden Gate PCD resident, when measured by an acres- ner- canitw standard lacks shopping opportunities readily available, for example, to a resident of the North Naples PCD. Assessment of New Golden Gate Area Master Plan (GGAMP) Commercial Land Uses A careful reading of the commercial zoning listings for land -uses for the Primary Trade Area (PTA) is demonstrated on the four (4) pages of ex- hibits that follow. These exhibits will demonstrate clearly that parcels avail- able for commercial uses in the general area likely to be affected by prospec- tive new commercial uses under recently adopted provisions of the GGAMP, namely parcels within TAZ 199, are largely C -2 uses located on parcels of diminumous dimensions. These parcels are largely vacant, particularly those with dimensions of 0.14 acres or less. Parcels in TAZ 200 now devoted to rental properties, not owner - occupied residences, that will eventually become available for commercial use are unlikely to accommodate commercial structures larger than 2,200 to 2,400 square feet in size. Currently, there are no commercially zoned prop- erties listed in TAZ 200. Evaluating the future uses of these commercially- unzoned properties appears problematic and is well beyond the scope of this study. Appendix A -1 COLLIER COUNTY COMMERCIAL LAND-USE CATEGORIES Note: Three -digit numbers refer to and Iwo -digit numbers refer to Collie 121 10 11 13 14 15 16 21 22 25 26 27 33 122 Wh 29 30 Sales and Service Vacant Commercial Stores Department Stores Supermarkets Regional Shopping Centers Community Shopping Centers Restaurants, Cafeterias Drive -In Restaurants Repair Service Shops [excluding Automotive] Service Stations Automotive Sales [1213] Nightclubs, Cocktail Lounges, Bars lesale Sales and Services Wholesale Outlets, Produce Houses, Manufacturing Outlets Florists, Greenhouses 123 Office and Professional Services 17 Office Buildings [Non - professional, one -story] 18 Office Buildings [Non - professional, multi -story] 19 Professional, Services Buildings 23 Financial Institutions [Banks, S&L's, Credit Services] 24 Insurance Company Offices 124 Hotel and Motel 39 Hotels, Motels 125 Cultural and Entertainment 31 Drive -In Theater, Open Stadium 32 Enclosed Theater, Auditorium 34 Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Pool Halls, Enclosed Areas 35 Tourist Attractions, Permanent Exhibits, Other Entertainment Other Miscellaneous* 20 Marine Terminals, Piers, Marinas 42 Manufacturing 38 Golf Courses, Driving Ranges 48 Warehousing, Distribution & Trucking Terminals, Van 6t Storage Warehousing 72 Private Schools St Colleges 86 Counties Other Than Public Schools Including Non - Municipal 88 Federal Government 91 Utility, Gas & Electricity, Telephone, Water /Sewer Service, Radio /Television * "Miscellaneous items are listed for reader information only. "Other" code items will assist the reader in identifying land uses not subject to analysis in Section II. � o s o a o osssssa o aoos000 o E os SS osoososossomsos SSSSSSS�SBS�SSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS 0 � N N N N�� N fG �� ml w O a O N Na N Nf of e Z O O 0 0 ♦ a 0 0 0 0� 0 0 0 0 W W W A m A m b l7 W W A N N W A W m N W W A > A > A > W > > > > > > > > > > 7 m > > > > > > > > > > > > LL N � O O G O O C O O G O C O CI C O O G G C O O O G G O CI O G O G O B O C O O O CI J Q � C Im N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N s ti 6 ti d ti ti d ti d ti J d d ti ti ti d i ti d d ti ti ti d ti J ti d d ti (i ti ti ti d O e♦ m C C C C C C C yj � C C C C C C C N rC C C C C C C C E C C C C C C C W W W A m A m b l7 W W A N N W A W m N W W A > A > A > W > > > > > > > > > > 7 m > > > > > > > > > > > > Q LL N 0 U IL I.- ct r co 0 r a o .92 0 O �? z o ° U N 3 �e 7 eH m m a IQ a O IL J ' W # N Z r N t7 O h 0 r ml N N N N N r N M e r_ N N N N N Z m O O O O O S S Q$ Z O D O O s O O O O Q Q Qm O O O O S O E O O Q O O O O Q Q m 6 m m m m m m m m m m m W CL O vi'i"i � C6 ri'i O 0 r O Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y Y m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m W m m m m m m m m m m H h N N D m (O m m O 0 m O m m D O m m m O I.- e e O wm H n N q YJ N u Y> N wm h N C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C C 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 rW W m m tt„I W W rC m s W A YO A A YO A A W m W A A m m m m W W m m m A A m W A 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (7 (7 m W C7 C7 0 0 C7 a 0 0 C c c C c c c g c c c c c c c c c m m m m m m m m m m A W W W m y� m m m m m m m m m m m m m m m -6 a a a a a a a o ti a g v a a s g o o v a v a '5 0 a 32 o g a 3 0 0 0 'o 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o O 6 o 0 O o o o 0 3 0$ o 0 0° o o � U' CD 0 U' a a 0 C9 C7 C7 0 CD C7 0 U' 0 CD 0 0 C7 a 0 (7 CD 0 U' (7 a G a 0 0 C7 C7 C7 C7 Q rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn m m rn rn rn rn rn m rn rn rn rn rn w rn rn rn rn rn m rn rn m rn N(p mrn rnrnrnmwrnma mmmrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnrnmrnrnmrnwrnrnmmrnrnrnrnmrn Q d 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M r d C N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N •L e e e e e v e e e e e e e e e e e e e � e e e e e e e e e e e e e <' e e a e r 'c E C E A �e1 N r r (V N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N U' (7 U' U' C7 C7 C7 C7 U' U' C7 C7 C7 (7 C7 7 C7 U' U' (7 C7 d U Q � C7 C7 N � C7 C7 C7 C7 C7 U' C7 C7 U' C7 C7 C7 C7 (7 A m A m l6 m A Q N N c c a 0 U Appendix A -1 COLLIER COUNTY COMMERCIAL LAND -USE CATEGORIES Note: Three -digit numbers refer to and two -digit numbers refer to Collie 121 10 11 13 14 15 16 21 22 25 26 27 33 122 Wh 29 30 Sales and Service Vacant Commercial Stores Department Stores Supermarkets Regional Shopping Centers Community Shopping Centers Restaurants, Cafeterias Drive -In Restaurants Repair Service Shops [excluding Automotive] Service Stations Automotive Sales [1213] Nightclubs, Cocktail Lounges, Bars gale Sales and Services Wholesale Outlets, Produce Houses, Manufacturing Outlets Florists, Greenhouses 173 Office and Professional Services 17 Office Buildings [Non - professional, one -story] 18 Office Buildings [Non - professional, multi -story] 19 Professional Services Buildings 23 Financial Institutions [Banks, S &L's, Credit Services] 24 Insurance Company Offices 124 Hotel and Motel 39 Hotels, Motels 125 Cultural and Entertainment 31 Drive -In Theater, Open Stadium 32 Enclosed Theater, Auditorium 34 Bowling Alleys, Skating Rinks, Pool Halls, Enclosed Areas 35 Tourist Attractions, Permanent Exhibits, Other Entertainment and Other Miscellaneous* 20 Marine Terminals, Piers, Marinas 42 Manufacturing 38 Goff Courses, Driving Ranges 48 Warehousing, Distribution & Trucking Terminals, Van & Storage Warehousing 72 Private Schools & Colleges 86 Counties Other Than Public Schools Including Non - Municipal 88 Federal Government 91 Utility, Gas & Electricity, Telephone, Water /Sewer Service, Radio/Television * "Miscellaneous" items are listed for reader information only. "Other" code items will assist the reader in identifying land uses not subject to analysis in Section II. $ p °oso`Q�0003"a'o88o`8O°O �0�800 q ei q U U U N C U U U U U U C1 U U U CS U U U U Wy m W m m N N O N m O w 0 0 tW'1 O O O O m N N W b o C O O O 0 g a g a m v? a e a m w D o e LL v m e> O N e N N N" Yi O C') + N N N N N e N W th e O e C m` >> f6 tl QC Q W M 0 8Sm m m M M M 7 "I fp a t e O opp 0 0 0 °o o g o 0 N N N N N N N N N N N N N N M N M N N U U U U q ei q U U U N C U U U U U U C1 U U U CS U U U U Wy m W m m N N O N m O w 0 0 tW'1 O O O O m N N W b o C O O N m 0 g a g a m v? a e a m w D o e $ m N R N m v m e> O N e N N N" Yi O C') + e j T ffLL >> f6 tl QC M N N N F- 7 d U U U U i a a U U U m N N m O O m C C C W O O a Q (7 N M vNi n M> �t>bb U � C O o 0 N Z'O a L O C d Q. O N C O o N O T m N W p w m w W m N O O S O S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 j O aC at e0 a0 N Ili 6 Ci F) a6 aG a0 eD aD Op6 Y m 6 N O O N U Q r y Y C1 a0 a0 m m m m m m la D] [D m a0 Y y 00 �' w m Y y S. m m W m W m W Y1 h W m m m m m W N H g W N t6 m m N m m N a a U y $ C9 -2 ° >>>> 7 7>> 7 Dc 7>>> > 7 7 7 7 E O ai m ai m ai m d m ai ai ti ti 6 6 m ai E 6 m E m « w w w C6 O m W N M t7 61 m 15 w a 0 U 0 U 0 U 0 w w 0 U (7 C7 U CD 0 vain '� wv wog-6 a m `� :9 -a p N 0 0 o d 0 0 0 0 0 5 0 0 0 0 0 U && 0 0 0 0 0 CD 0 a U (7 U 0 U CD U 0 (D 0 0 0 U U U U G' In O)0)O) 0) m O) O) m O)O)O) O) 0) mO)a) W m Of O)0) (O(Om O)O)OJ O)O)O) D) m O) O) O) CD O)M CD O) mC) GQ > �N Gi ai �m (D (7 (7 Uw C7 C7 C7 Uw CD o v o a yN N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 (D 0 (7 0 C7 eo aD eD OO m W a0 w co CD d T O) 01 O) OI O) O) N C W W m m m m m m W m W m W W N N N N N N N N m W W m W N N N N N W W m N N N O N N N N N N cc O m G m m w rn m m o+ m w m m rn m m o+ m a m rn m m w m m W m m W m W m m N N N N N N N N N N m N (rp C H A w rn 0) m m o+ m m m w m m IM C e 3 •E N N N N N N N N N N N N !� m M e