COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department

Transcription

1 COLLIER COUNTY Growth Management Department March 24, 2016 Tim Hancock, AICP Stntec Consulting Services Inc Bailey Lane, Suite 200 Naples, FL Tim.Hancock@stantec.com RE: Planned Unit Development Rezone PL Collier County Recourse Recovery Business Park Dear Applicant: The following comments are provided to you regarding the above referenced project. If you have questions, please contact the appropriate staff member who conducted the review. The project will retain a "HOLD" status until all comments are satisfied. The following comments need to be addressed as noted: Rejected Review: Engineering Stormwater Review Reviewed By: Liz Gosselin lizgosselin@colliergov.net Phone #: (239) The County is proposing a flow diversion from the Golden Gate Main Canal to South Belle Meade across I-75. As part of this flow diversion, a diversion canal is planned be constructed along the western boundary line of the parcel lying immediately west of the Landfill and south of the subject property. The diversion canal will cross the proposed most western road (primary access, Figure 1 of Traffic Impact Study). Arrangements need to be incorporated for accommodating the canal crossing. The area to be developed is determined to be within a floodplain. Although, floodplain compensation may be addressed during the ERP process, please provide an explanation on how floodplain impacts and compensatory storage will be addressed. Rejected Review: Environmental Review Reviewed By: Summer Araque summerbrownaraque@colliergov.net Phone #: (239) Submit a current aerial photograph (available from the Property Appraiser's office) and clearly delineate the subject site boundary lines. If the site is vegetated, provide FLUCFCS overlay and

2 vegetation inventory identifying upland, wetland and exotic vegetation (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.1. Application Contents #24). Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as Preserve on all plans (LDC H.1.). Per code, just label as Preserve. Also, where is the preserve boundary? There is a space between the dashed line and clouding, which boundary is the Preserve? Please consider a different way to delineate the preserve, such as a hatching? Is the square in the upper left corner preserve? Correction Comment 3: Principle structures shall be located a minimum of 25 from the boundary of the preserve boundary. No accessory structures and other site alterations, fill placement, grading, plant alteration or removal, or similar activity shall be permitted within 10 of the boundary unless it can be shown that it will not affect the integrity of the preserve (i.e. stem wall or berm around wetland preserve). Staff requests the preserve setback be included in the setback table. Correction Comment 4: PUD Document and Master Plan shall state the minimum acreage required to be preserved (Admin. Code Ch. 3 G.1. PUD Master Plan Contents #4). This was provided, however the LDC section cited is incorrect, please revise. Also, please explain environmental commitment #2 - is this necessary or already required by the LDC? Let s discuss whether the PUD should address the buffer requirement in this section or another section of the PUD. Correction Comment 5: Staff requests the PUD to include a Preserve Tract section. When listing preserve uses, the following is suggested: A. Principal Use: Preserve; B. Accessory Uses: All other uses (list as applicable or refer to the LDC) Please provide Correction Comment 6: PUD Document shall identify any listed species found on site and/or describe any unique vegetative features that will be preserved on the site. (LDC A.2.) Correction Comment 7: Miscellaneous Corrections: Provide a narrative explaining how clearing and the PMP were/are being implemented. Preserve Management Plan (PMP) provided. Approved previously by other agencies. The PMP is not being reviewed at this time. Rejected Review: Transportation Pathways Review Reviewed By: Laurie Beard LaurieBeard@colliergov.net Phone #: (239) Additional Comments- Transportation Pathways Review: Deviation #2 requests to provide a five foot sidewalk on one side of the private right-of-ways or easements which are internal to the

3 site. Please provide a wider sidewalk (six foot) as compensation for the missing sidewalk. Also, please remove from the justification and no off-site connections for pedestrians will be developed. Rejected Review: Transportation Planning Review Reviewed By: Michael Sawyer michaelsawyer@colliergov.net Phone #: (239) Developer commitments made as a condition of zoning are not adequately addressed Rev.1: Reference transportation commitment 4, please identify the outparcels on the master plan for clarification/clarity. Developer commitments made as a condition of zoning are not adequately addressed Rev.1: Reference transportation commitment 1, provide copies of the agreement for inclusion and review confirmation. Correction Comment 3: Additional Items that need to be addressed for Transportation Review: Rev.1: Please outline in more detail the need for four+ points of access for the development...operationally needed, separation of activities and lack of internal access? or? Rejected Review: Zoning Review Reviewed By: Eric Johnson EricJohnson@colliergov.net Phone #: (239) Why is the property boundary shown on the property appraiser s website slightly different than that which is shown on the survey (sheet 5 of 10)? What is the dashed line at the western portion of the site above the words, Native Vegetation? Is it a vacated ROW or easement? With respect to Parcel ID and , please include the following: Legal description; plat book and page number (if applicable); or subdivision, unit, lot, and block or metes and bounds description (if applicable). Correction Comment 3: On the master plan, please label the tract for access. Also, with respect to access, why doesn t the easternmost arrow connect with the road directly to its west? If the project intent is to have ingress/egress at the southwestern portion of the site, why doesn t it connect with anything to the west of the site (i.e., City Gate Boulevard North)? On the master plan, provide location of all proposed roads with typical cross-sections. Provide a typical cross-section of the proposed ROW within the PUD Document, under Deviations.

4 Correction Comment 4: The project narrative indicates the site was previously approved for the following uses: Administration and Equipment Maintenance Facility; Recycled Materials Processing Facility & Dirty MRF; White Goods; Tire Processing; Household Hazardous Waste Facility; C&D and Brown Good Facility; Gas and Leachate Management; Yard Waste and Storm Debris Processing. If the project intent is to modify access so that it comes from City Gate Boulevard North, please describe the size and types of vehicles that are expected to utilize this new point of access. What will be their cargo? Odor? Vibrations? Hazardous waste? Correction Comment 5: Please provide responses to each of the following criteria of LDC Section B.5. a. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. b. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Findings and recommendations of this type shall be made only after consultation with the County Attorney. c. Conformity of the proposed PUD with the goals, objectives, policies, and the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. d. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. e. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. f. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. g. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. h. Conformity with PUD regulations, or as to desirable modifications of such regulations in the particular case, based on determination that such modifications are justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Correction Comment 6: On the location map, please label the County landfill (because this is how the subject site is currently accessed). Correction Comment 7: What is the proposed timing for, location of, sequence of phasing, or incremental development within the PUD? Correction Comment 8:

5 Are any future buildings proposed? If so, what will be the provision of all needed utilities to serve the PUD (as appropriate)? Potable water? Sanitary sewer? Stormwater Management Area? Correction Comment 9: On the master plan, indicate all existing streets and pedestrian systems within the site, watercourses, easements, and zoning districts of abutting property. Include book and page numbers of platted parcels, section lines, and other important physical features within and adjoining the proposed development. Correction Comment 10: In the Property Development Regulations Table on sheet 2 of 2 of the master plan, please identify each tract as Tract A rather than just A. Correction Comment 11: On the master plan, create an additional table that details the acreage and percentage of land area (expressed in acres) dedicated to the following land use categories: Industrial Conservation/Preservation Lakes/Water Management Facilities Common Open Space Buffers Right-of-Way Correction Comment 12: On the master plan, show the location and size (as appropriate) of all existing, drainage, water, sewer, and other utilities. Correction Comment 13: Unless waived by the Zoning Manager, please provide the location of proposed and existing roads, rights-of-way, and pedestrian systems within 1,500 feet of the proposed development. Correction Comment 14: Ensure the names of each use in the PUD Document under Principal Uses better correspond to the table of uses on the master plan. Same with the table within the PUD Document. Correction Comment 15: On the Sight Line Exhibit, why does the average height of trees at 60 feet appear shorter than the 55-foot tall building? Rejected Review: County Attorney Review Reviewed By: Heidi Ashton-Cicko EricJohnson@colliergov.net Phone #: (239) See attached memorandum. Rejected Review: Landscape Review Reviewed By: Marcia Kendall

6 Phone #: (239) Comments forthcoming. The following comments are informational and/or may include stipulations: When addressing review comments, please provide a cover letter outlining your response to each comment. Include a response to completed reviews with stipulations. If you have any questions, please contact me at (239) Sincerely, Eric Johnson Principal Planner Growth Management Department