Reference: Planned Unit Development Rezone PL Collier County Resource Recovery Business Park Sufficiency Response No. 2

Transcription

1 Stantec Consulting Services Inc Bailey Lane, Suite 200, Naples, FL August 16, 2016 File: Attention: Eric Johnson Principal Planner Collier County Growth Management Division Zoning Services 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, Florida Dear Mr. Johnson, Pursuant to staff review comments dated June 22, 2016, please find enclosed the following items for your review and approval: 1. Nine Copies of the Response Letter; 2. Nine Copies of the Revised PUD Document; 3. Nine Copies of the Revised Master Plan; 4. Nine Copies of the Boundary Survey; 5. Nine Copies of the City Gate DCA dated July 8, 2014; 6. Nine Copies of the Access and Utility Exhibit; The following information is offered in response to the County s review comments and request for additional information. The County questions, comments, and concerns are provided below in bold type, followed by our response. Environmental Review - Summer Araque Clearly identify the location of all preserves and label each as Preserve on all plans (LDC H.1.). As discussed, the preserve boundary is still not clear. The easement and especially the wellhead boundaries are not clear. Please consider a different way to delineate the preserve that makes the boundary clear. Response: The Master Plan has been revised to clearly identify and label all the easements, including revised hatching for the Native Vegetation Buffer area. Please spell out or provide a legend for the following: 30' Easement - what type of easement? Response: The Master Plan has been revised to more clearly label the type and dimensions for each easement.

2 Page 2 of 6 200' BE - is this actually an easement? Response: The Native Vegetation Buffer will not be in as easement. The Master Plan has been revised to remove the easement label. The 200 buffer area will be placed in a separate tract at the time of platting or SDP approval. There is a discrepancy in the preserve acreage. It is apparent that a note needs to be adding regarding the preserve buffer acreage to clarify the preserve acreage. Please explain why the Preserve provided is and Land Use table Preserve is Response: The native vegetation calculation on the Master Plan has been revised to indicate acres of native vegetation, which exceeds the requirement in LDC Section C.4.b. The acres of native vegetation consists of a acre preserve area, along with a 6 acre Native Vegetation Buffer along the west side of the property, adjacent to the Golden Gate canal and across from Estates zoned properties. Please send the revised Master Plan to staff prior to next resubmittal. We can review within 3 business days. Response: The Master Plan as revised is consistent with comments as noted as well as those provided at our meeting on August 12th. The applicant is very appreciative of the willingness of review staff to meet and review the proposed changes. 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). a. This was provided in Environmental Commitment #1, however the LDC section cited is incorrect, please revise (repeat comment). Response: The PUD document has been revised to reference the correct LDC section. b. Remove environmental commitment #2. Response: The PUD document has been revised to remove environmental commitment 2. The remaining commitments have been renumbered. c. Include the Preserve buffer requirement in the Environmental commitments. Use exact language from the CU, "A 200' wide preserve buffer shall be provided along the western side of the property."

3 Page 3 of 6 Response: The PUD document has been revised to include the condition regarding the 200 buffer approved in Resolution The Master Plan has also been revised to depict 200 Native Vegetation Buffer along the western portion of the property, consistent with the resolution. Correction Comment 3: The preserve tract section appears to refer to the section of the code under which the preserve was calculated. The allowable uses section of the LDC is H.1.h. Response: The PUD document has been revised as requested. Zoning Review - Eric Johnson On the master plan, please label the tract for access. 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)? As of now, it appears the site would be a "land-locked lot." On the master plan, indicate all existing streets and pedestrian systems within the site, and easements. Please label all easements. Response: A Future Access Exhibit has been provided to illustrate the future primary access to the property from City Gate Boulevard North. This exhibit also includes the potential future water and waste water mains which will provide potable water and sanitary sewer services to the property. Please indicate the closest sanitary sewer line, either existing or planned. Response: The closest Sanitary Sewer line is located well beyond the 1,500 from the property. However, a sanitary sewer line and water main are proposed to be extended to the property as part of the City Gate Boulevard North Extension. Although the final location of the lines will be determined by Collier County Utilities, the Access and Utilities Exhibit shows a general depiction of the future water and sewer lines. Correction Comment 3: 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. Response: An Access and Utilities Exhibit has been included showing the general location of the future access and pedestrian facilities to the subject property. The request for a map showing

4 Page 4 of 6 pedestrian systems, etc. has been waived by the Zoning Manager at our meeting on August 12, Correction Comment 4: The master plan should only be comprised of two (2) sheets. The first page should be the graphic illustration and the other should be the table/data. Response: The Master Plan has been revised as requested. Correction Comment 5: Will the temporary uses listed in Exhibit A be allowed in all Tracts? Response: All temporary uses indicated in Exhibit A of the PUD Document will be permitted on Tracts A-D. Correction Comment 6: The Preserve Tract in Exhibit A of the PUD Document should be relabeled to B. Preserve Tract because it isn t considered a Development Tract, like that of "A" through "D." Response: Please see the revised headings in Exhibit A of the PUD document. The headings for the Preserve Tract and the Development Tracts have been formatted for consistency. Correction Comment 7: The proposed setbacks for principal structures are indicated in Table 1 of Exhibit B. Please show the setbacks graphically on the master plan to ensure we agree on what constitutes the front, side, and rear yards. Response: In accordance with our meeting on August 12 th, a Lot Layout Exhibit has been provided on the second page of the MCP to illustrate the setbacks for each lot as described in the Property Development Standards table in Exhibit B of the PUD document. Correction Comment 8: Note #3 from Table I in Exhibit B indicates, "All individual sites within developed area shall be designed as drive-thru as much as possible to minimize backup movement by vehicles." Is this related to interconnections or off-street parking areas? There is too much ambiguity with this note. Please clarify. Response: This commitment was included as a condition in the Conditional Use approved in Resolution We are including this condition due to the fact it was part of the previous approval. This condition applies to the entire site design of the project including access, interconnections and parking areas. The intent of this condition is to minimize the compatibility concerns relating to the noise generated from back-up alarms on commercial vehicles.

5 Page 5 of 6 Correction Comment 9: Please update Note #5 of Exhibit F (Developer Commitments) of the PUD Document to exclude the word, Conditional Use in the following paragraph: No permanent access onto 31st Street SW shall be granted as part of this Conditional Use approval; however, this condition shall not be construed to preclude any temporary emergency access that may be required by any other government agency. Response: The PUD ordinance has been revised as requested. Correction Comment 10: Please ensure the information in the 1) Development Standards of Table 1 in Exhibit B; 2) Exhibit C Master Plan; and 3) Sight Line Exhibit all complements each other. Response: The Master Plan, Development Standards Table, and Sight Line Exhibit have been revised to be internally consistent. Correction Comment 11: Since the boundaries shown on the master plan and survey do not match the boundaries shown on the property appraiser s website, please provide the document approving the vacation of the easement. Response: As depicted on the Boundary Survey, no easement exists on the property. Therefore, no vacation is necessary. The survey provided is correct. County Attorney Review Heidi Ashton-Cicko Please provide 8 ½ X 11 version of the proposed master plan. Please label all interior and exterior streets including Garland Road. Response: The Master Plan has been revised as requested. Please provide a copy of the Boundary Survey. Response: Multiple copies of the Boundary Survey were included in the original application packet. An additional copy of the survey has been included with this submittal. Correction Comment 3: Please provide a copy of the DCA dated 7/8/14 or its successor.

6 Page 6 of 6 Response: Multiple copies of the DCA were included in the May 15, 2016 submittal packet. An additional copy of the signed DCA has been included with this submittal. Landscape Review Daniel Smith Label perimeter buffers on the Master Plan. If preserves meet the requirements of the buffers make a note on the Master Plan. Response: The required Type C buffers adjacent to the developable portion of the project have been shown on the MCP. Where existing vegetation will serve to meet these buffer requirements, no additional plantings will be required. The Landscape section of the PUD document (Exhibit F) has been revised to include a commitment that the preserves and native buffer area will be supplemented with native vegetation as required to meet the LDC buffer requirements. The Master Plan has been revised to show a 10 wide Type A buffer along the southern boundary of the project. Show all road ROW's with labels and any access drives to the site. Response: The Master Plan has been revised to show the adjacent roads. An access exhibit has been prepared to show the future access to the property from City Gate Boulevard North Extension. We trust that the above information and enclosed documents are sufficient for staff review and approval. If you should have any questions or require additional information, please do not hesitate to contact me. Regards, Stantec Consulting Services Inc. Tim Hancock, AICP Senior Associate Phone: (239) Fax: (239) Tim.Hancock@stantec.com Attachment: See above