Loading...
CCPC Agenda 02/06/2014 R COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSIONMEETING AGENDA FEBRUARY 6, 2014 AGENDA COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION WILL MEET AT 9:00 A.M., THURSDAY, FEBRUARY 6, 2014, IN THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS MEETING ROOM,ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, COUNTY GOVERNMENT CENTER,THIRD FLOOR, 3299 TAMIAMI TRAIL EAST,NAPLES, FLORIDA: NOTE: INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS WILL BE LIMITED TO 5 MINUTES ON ANY ITEM. INDIVIDUALS SELECTED TO SPEAK ON BEHALF OF AN ORGANIZATION OR GROUP ARE ENCOURAGED AND MAY BE ALLOTTED 10 MINUTES TO SPEAK ON AN ITEM IF SO RECOGNIZED BY THE CHAIRMAN. PERSONS WISHING TO HAVE WRITTEN OR GRAPHIC MATERIALS INCLUDED IN THE CCPC AGENDA PACKETS MUST SUBMIT SAID MATERIAL A MINIMUM OF 10 DAYS PRIOR TO THE RESPECTIVE PUBLIC HEARING. IN ANY CASE, WRITTEN MATERIALS INTENDED TO BE CONSIDERED BY THE CCPC SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE APPROPRIATE COUNTY STAFF A MINIMUM OF SEVEN DAYS PRIOR TO THE PUBLIC HEARING. ALL MATERIAL USED IN PRESENTATIONS BEFORE THE CCPC WILL BECOME A PERMANENT PART OF THE RECORD AND WILL BE AVAILABLE FOR PRESENTATION TO THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS IF APPLICABLE. ANY PERSON WHO DECIDES TO APPEAL A DECISION OF THE CCPC 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. 1. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 2. ROLL CALL BY SECRETARY 3. ADDENDA TO THE AGENDA 4. PLANNING COMMISSION ABSENCES 5. APPROVAL OF MINUTES— January 2, 2014 6. BCC REPORT-RECAPS 7. CHAIRMAN'S REPORT 8. CONSENT AGENDA ITEMS A. PUDZ-PL20130000827: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district to allow up to 75 residential dwelling units and a clubhouse for a project to be known as The Lord's Way 30 Acre RPUD. The subject property is located on The Lord's Way on the east side of Collier Boulevard (CR 951) in Section 14, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 30d acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,AICP,RLA, Principal Planner] Page 1 of 3 B. PUDA-PL20120002855: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 02-35, as amended, the Winding Cypress Planned Unit Development (PUD), by increasing the number of residential dwelling units from 2,300 to 2,854; by increasing the residential development area by 44 acres to 492 acres; by increasing the Village Center acreage by 2 acres for a total of 17 acres; by increasing the gross floor area of the Village Center District by 20,000 square feet for a total of 50,000 square feet; by increasing the acreage of lakes from 235 acres to 272 acres; by removing the 164 acres of golf area and eliminating the 18-hole golf course; by increasing the preserve area by 44 acres to 840 acres; by increasing buffers, waterways, canal and FP&L easements from 180 acres to 219 acres; providing for addition of Winding Cypress Master Plan,Tract B to Exhibit A; providing for addition of Exhibit C, Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plan; providing for List of Deviations; and providing an Effective Date. The subject property is located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East(US 41) and Collier Boulevard (CR-951) in Sections 26, 34 and 35, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 2 and 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 1,928 acres. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem,Principal Planner] C. DOA-PL20120002856: A Resolution amending Resolution No. 99-467, as amended, (Development Order 99-4) for the Winding Cypress Development of Regional Impact by providing for Section One, Amendments to Development Order by increasing the number of residential dwelling units from 2,300 to 2,854; by increasing the residential development area by 44 acres to 492 acres; by increasing the village center acreage by 2 acres for a total of 17 acres; by increasing the gross floor area of the Village Center District by 20,000 square feet for a total of 50,000 square feet; by increasing the acreage of lakes from 235 acres to 272 acres; by removing the 164 acres of golf area and eliminating the 18-hole golf course; by increasing the preserve area by 44 acres to 840 acres; by increasing buffers, waterways, canal and FP&L easements from 180 acres to 219 acres; by extending the build-out date to December 31, 2020 and expiration date to December 31, 2025; and by amending the Master Plan; by providing for Section Two, Findings of Fact; Section Three, Conclusions of Law; and Section Four, Effect of Previously Issued Development Orders,Transmittal to Department of Economic Opportunity and Effective Date. The subject property is located at the northeast quadrant of the intersection of Tamiami Trail East (US-41) and Collier Boulevard(CR 951) in Sections 26, 34 and 35, Township 50 South, Range 26 East, and Sections 2 and 3, Township 51 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida consisting of 1,928± acres. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem,Principal Planner] 9. ADVERTISED PUBLIC HEARINGS A. PUDZ-A-PL20090001891: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, amending Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52, the Quail II Planned Unit Development (PUD), to allow 87 single-family detached, attached and zero lot line units or 152 multi-family dwelling units as permitted uses in the Residential (R-1) District by providing for: Section One, Amendments to Cover Page; Section Two, Amendments to the Table of Contents/Exhibits page; Section Three, Amendment to Statement of Compliance section; Section Four, Amendments to Project Description section; Section Five, Amendments to Permitted Uses and Development Standards section including a revised legal description and removal of requirement to contribute to affordable housing trust fund for units developed in R-1 District; Section Six, Amendments to Exhibit A, the PUD Master Plan and Addition of Exhibit B, R-1 District Master Plan and Addition of Exhibit C, Deviations; and Section Seven, Effective Date. The subject property is located north of Immokalee Road and east of Valewood Drive in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East, Collier County, Florida. [Coordinator: Nancy Gundlach,AICP,Principal Planner] Page 2 of 3 B. PUDA-PL20130000175: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Resolution Number R-73-22-C which established the Naples Bath and Tennis Club Planned Unit Development, as amended by Ordinance Numbers 74-47, 75-48, 81-61 and 10-05, to allow construction of a single family dwelling unit within Tract B, Recreational Club Development and to allow sports instructional schools and camps as a principal use and a private school accessory to a sports instructional school as an accessory use within Tract B, Recreational Club Development; and further providing for Development Standards and adoption of Exhibit E-1, Location Map for Single Family Home within Tract B. The subject property is located on Airport Road, south of Pine Ridge Road in Section 14, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Kay Deselem, Principal Planner] C. PUDA-PL20130001056: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance Number 08-13 which established the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development, to retain the density of 204 residential units; to revise the Master Plan to change the location of the entrance road on Veterans Memorial Boulevard, to reconfigure the on-site preserve areas and reconfigure the development area; to revise development standards; to add deviations; and to modify development commitments including removal of the affordable housing commitment. The subject property is located on the southeast corner of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard in Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 51±acres; and by providing an effective date. [Coordinator: Michael Sawyer,Project Manager] D. Petition PUDZ-PL20120002779: An Ordinance of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida amending Ordinance No. 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Development Code, which established the comprehensive zoning regulations for the unincorporated area of Collier County, Florida by amending the appropriate zoning atlas map or maps by changing the zoning classification of the herein described real property from a Rural Agricultural (A) zoning district to a Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) zoning district for the project known as Temple Citrus Grove RPUD to allow development of up to 512 single family dwelling units and/or two-family and duplex dwelling units on property located between Airport-Pulling Road and Livingston Road in Sections 1 and 12, Township 49 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida, consisting of 132.68+/- acres; and by providing an effective date. (Coordinator: Fred Reischl, Sr. Planner) 10. OLD BUSINESS 11. NEW BUSINESS 12. ADJOURN CCPC Agenda/Ray Bellows/jmp Page 3 of 3 AGENDA ITEM 9-A Co er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION, PLANNING AND REGULATION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2014 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL2009-1891, QUAIL II PUD(PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) APPLICANT/OWNER: CONTRACT PURCHASER: Westbury Quail Gardens, LLC Toll FL III Limited Partnership 3838 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 402 250 Gibraltar Road Naples,FL 34103 Horsham, PA 19044 * Please note: this amendment is being bought forward by the Applicant/Property Owner of Tract R-1. There are other numerous property owners within the Quail II PUD. AGENTS: Mr. D. Wayne Arnold,AICP Mr. Richard D. Yovanovich Q. Grady Minor& Associates Goodlette,Coleman and Johnson,P.A. 3800 Via Del Rey 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 Bonita Springs,FL 34134 Naples,FL 34103 REQUESTED ACTION: The Quail II PUD currently allows 152 multi-family dwelling units as a permitted use in the Residential(R-1) District within the Quail II PUD. The petitioner requests that the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) consider an amendment to the Quail II PUD to allow 87 single- family detached, attached and zero lot line dwelling units or 152 multi-family dwelling units as permitted uses in the Residential (R-1) District within the Quail II PIJD. PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL II PUD January 28,2014 Page 1 of 16 MN „t- 0.:.p...1- it_ guerwc\--.17.31.0---iwym IN oic.-0 -.as.- YI,„ so vr ,----iw ii. pi--i . irs *II 44, so P#lo u.•I # , 011. all.V - NMI NI IP: .„, 1 4'0 A PA A/4,* c*/ ..,2 k• te•\,■ Wit Ci ii � 1 4P0 �il �%/% $ ' i • 1 a � � 01. _I_ n_ a ■ . -- -1k-J-Iumoillimmlimil. 1111 • 3 e i`-- _jr0 i I i i _ Cr: — i 8 Magi tl' a 1 FN.I Nu. I � _. .. �\ kg co a N mAa 0 7i a # I AVB OW litl]N _ 1 �! of wre US __— n�. pi awnainoa Names x, FI g4 I gW t- W IT a 4' ^<” c,;- al — s - S am-m 1 o Y _ w O w4 o¢' W ads sp^ Q a s -, __._ _ I ^ -15i - EGA 2 , a I N1/01 11 c I ^ .z PI 1 Q ailI . SA SIVIStl3ANl FSISNLLNFN 1 , '� 15 S O—, YD MOMS•!sW MOO.RYU1 Si SAVIS•L.F �••�� j p I Mii I ni i ! r`N ° � I �x- wiiii i 1 I ilia E ga .Y„AT•DAS s 4_1_,,,3„,,, ....0,„.,,..t....0,,„:i ,21.,.! viiHsibuig :,, _06=3 QUAIL CREEK ESTATES AND COUNTRY CLUB ( PUD) , li ,, ._ .. , . _,- . . s • W � I ( :' _. g r, z ' I G • 4 a we J g O O . . HUNTINGTON 3 LONGSHORE LAKES O LAKE ( PUD ) R• ` ( PUD ) fil r ti 0 O 11 � w ^ 0 r (...¢"- a 4\ " 3 Q 3 • W W r {- 11 BUFFER MAY BE REDUCED TO 10'IF DEVELOPED MATH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES = 't 17 u x �o c N 3 w m Vines&Associales,Inc.. LandPlanner n a Arthur Klls&Assoclates,Inc. Gulf Course Architects ifi COMMERCIAL r Wilson Millerinc. gas . COMMERCIAL EXHIBIT 'A' 100'CANAL RIGHT OF WAY —•-- .n1.1Oe r,C'.1 C41601C/..!:I CAt1 ,.' a•...r GOLDEN GATE ESTATES QUAIL II - PUD MASTER PLAN FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY A Portion of Section 20, Twp.48 S, Rge. 25 E SCALE:f'=A! MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY //'// FOR R-1 DISTRICT: UP TO 152 MULTI-FAMILY OR 87 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS (INCLUDES ATTACHED, / DETACHED, ZERO LOT LINE, TWO-FAMILY ATTACHED AND DUPLEX) AS DESCRIBED IN QUAIL II PUD ORDINANCE, / SECTION 3.4. / / / *15'BUFFER MAY BE REDUCED TO 10'IF DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. / / / / DEVIATIONS /// / 13 SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02,"BUFFER REQUIREMENTS",WHICH REQUIRES A ■ // / AMENITY 15-FOOT MADE TYPE'B'BUFFER BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES TO PERMIT A AREA 10-FOOT VMDE TYPE'B'BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROJECT BOUNDARY. /j/ ® SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SUBSECTION 6.06.02.A,'SIDEWALKS,BIKE LANEC.i AND PATHWAY REQUIREMENTS", WHICH REQUIRES SIDEWALKS TO BE /� / CONSTRUCTED ON BOTH SIDES OF LOCAL STREETS,TO ALLOW SIDEWALKS, oQ 5-FOOT IN WIDTH, ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET ONLY FOR PRIVATE �`�vv/��/ / I STREETS. //`�V,4-- ' 6. SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SUBSECTION „Mr.'v% 6.01.N, "STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS" �// / % ©© / AND"APPENDIX B",TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS / / / / „.---, \ 1 AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGN STANDARDS, // // 1 WHICH ESTABLISHES A 60-FOOT WIDE LOCAL ' V/ ROAD TO ALLOW A MINIMUM 50-FOOT WID�V/ / // w PRIVATE ROAD.(PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) / / ../.' I I v w QUAIL CREEK i� / :/ /�En 1C,s - D ESTATES AND / 15'TYPE'B' FFER/ \ 1n a- COUNTRY CLUB // / '(W/6'-8'HIGH WALL* l 15'TYPE'B'BL FF R w / L L W ce (PUD) /// / I (EXISTING WALL TO Q // / / / REMAIN) I I } J J 1 w iii// / / 2t74 .± ` _ / R-1 DISTRICT CD �� Q©'` \ \ w 0 i / ©o — — — —� 1 z I C I f 0.., , ..,'/ j 10 m I { III 1 _.:.., , _ I, I 11 1 10'TYPE'B'BUFFER _ r 1:15 I j+ W/6'-8' HIGH WALL I 1 I 3 I ` � Q� I COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES L a E , __- 1 N I r r r I r I N III I- r o I I I If- - - - - - _ ! . a i ri I I COCOHATCHEE CANAL J --- (10x5 R/W) 0 200' --- --- --- --- ! ` SCALE: 1"=200' —— ——— IMMOKALEE ROAD s QUAIL II PUD , °.°''""'a..M:A l .1. �BMW,®GradyMinor :MOO flf.Del BBB mmo 4 R.,.Sp,, .51.M,kr 91131 EXHIBIT , B' MIL =OM mu(m), Cw1I Engineers . Land Soemors • Planners Landscape Architects R-1 DISTRICT ms BMus Cert.o,a,mlmus,5, Ceet O.Y.I.LBWO5151 BaskieBe LC mean MASTER PLAN Lb16.9-mu, Boni Spring*239.947.1144 r.W.GraOyMilin/.Cna! FonMyas 239.690.4390 SHEET 1 OP 1 i GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The existing Quail II PUD, consisting of 194.34± acres, is located on the north side of Immokalee Road (C.R. 846), approximately 1/2 mile east of Interstate 75, in Section 20, Township 48 South, Range 26 East. (See the location map and the PUD Master Plans on the preceding pages.) PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner proposes to amend Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52,the Quail II PUD Planned Unit Development (PUD) (see Attachment B), to allow 87 single-family detached, attached and zero lot line dwelling units as an alternative to the currently approved 152 multi-family dwelling units as permitted uses in the Residential(R-1) District. The following related amendments are proposed to the PUD Ordinance: - Section One, amendments to the Cover Page; - Section Two, amendments to the Table of Contents/Exhibits Page; - Section Three, amendment to Statement of Compliance Section - Section Four, amendments to Project Description section; - Section Five, amendments to Permitted Uses and Development Standards section including a revised legal description and removal of requirement to contribute to affordable housing trust fund for units developed in R-1 District;providing for addition of Deviations; - Section Six, Amendments to Exhibit A, the PUD Master Plan and Addition of Exhibit B, R-1 District Master Plan; - Section Seven,Effective Date SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING(of Tract R-1): North: Quail II PUD, developed residential golf course portion approved at 2.6 units per acre,with a zoning designation of PUD (Quail II PUD Ordinance number 05-52) East: Longshore Lake, a developed single-family residential PUD approved at 1.77 units per acre, with a zoning designation of PUD(Longshore Lake PUD Ordinance Number 93-3) South: Quail II PUD, developed commercial portion and vacant lots with a zoning designation of PUD (Quail II PUD Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52), Immokalee Road and then Estates (E) zoning West: Huntington Lakes, a developed multi-family residential PUD approved at 5.4 units per acre, with a zoning designation of PUD (Huntington PUD Ordinance Number 94-38) PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL II PUD January 28,2014 Page 5 of 16 -„ - - i .10{ Y.""91¢ * 1"1"17 'I, ■ w ,.,144-. ..*.f • 4 a :* "4 at ,_-, _ 1 J i 4 :«, n .ii Ink 4 '.{''' :It 0 ' :. i ite. „ :: i::;;* kIP'e if: 3 it A 4 , * a � ...b.M +x , 4 ,., .,. f 1, ..1 4,f,_ 1:1:itr: 41"44,5 ,72. , , .N . - ; :.....„: bject PUD �� t +.. 11 ' ' ' -44411111 *. . r tfX I, " ' ' „r 1,*. 'ft' 2 la" *'''‘'4 4: - Subject Site "r'' s .ri.1, t', �N • : j' ''Imo..- I.e..t"" ce"*.�..... " ♦ j Aerial Photo GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element: The subject property is located within the Urban designated area (Urban - Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) and a portion of the site is within a residential density band, as identified on the countywide Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Within this designation, and in accordance with the Density Rating System provisions of the FLUE, a base density of four (4) dwelling units per acre (DU/A) is allowed for the non-commercial portion of the PUD (181.59 acres) as well as 3 DU/A bonus density for that non-commercial portion within the residential density band. The existing Quail II PUD allows a maximum of 512 dwelling units, a gross density of 2.8 DU/A (Ordinance Number 05-52 erroneously states 2.6 DU/A). The Quail II PUD was originally approved in 1982, and substantially amended on June 16, 1992 by Ordinance Number 92-41, and deemed consistent with the GMP. It was subsequently amended on October 11, 2005 through Ordinance Number 05-52 to: convert ±21.74 acres of commercial PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL II PUD January 28,2014 Page 6 of 16 property to residential, rename this new tract "Residential R-1 District;" and add 152 residential multi-family dwelling units at a density of 7 DU/A on this R-1 tract. The remaining 12.75 acres of commercial were deemed"consistent by policy." Relevant to this petition, the proposed amendment seeks to allow a maximum of 87 single-family within the R-1 District of the PUD, which yields a maximum of 4 DU/A as an alternative to the 152 multi-family units presently allowed. In accordance with the proposed PUD document, single- family dwelling units would consist of detached, zero lot line, and two-family and duplex units. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with the surrounding area. Please refer to the Zoning Review section of this Staff Report for this analysis. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5-year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the proposed changes to the PUD documents. The petition is consistent with the applicable provisions of the Conservation and Coastal Management Element(CCME) of the GMP. GMP Conclusion: Based upon the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed rezone consistent with the Future Land Use Element(FLUE). ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in LDC Subsection 10.02.13 B.5, Planning Commission Hearing and Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection, 10.02.08 F.,Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the basis for their recommendation to the BCC, who in turn use the criteria to support their action on the rezoning request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning and Land Development Review Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition to address any environmental concerns. The proposed changes do not affect any of the environmental requirements of the GMP or LDC (Land Development Code). An EAC (Environmental Advisory Council) review is not required in accordance with Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation Department staff has reviewed the petition and has recom- mended approval of the amendment. PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL II PUD January 28,2014 Page 7 of 16 Utility Review: The Utilities Department Staff has reviewed the petition and has the following comments. According to the current 2008 Water and Wastewater Master Plan Updates,the project location is within the Collier County Water - Sewer District Service Area. At the time of the Site Development Plan (SDP), this project is subject to the conditions associated with a Water and Sewer Availability Letter from the Collier County Public Utilities Division. Zoning Review: The proposed PUD amendment will allow additional land uses to the R-1 District in the Quail II PUD. There was an amendment approved in 2005 to allow 152 multi-family dwelling units. The current amendment proposes to allow 87 single-family dwelling units or 152 multi-family dwelling units in the R-1 District. The maximum number of dwelling units allowed within the Quail II PUD will remain at 512 dwelling units and the density has been corrected from 2.6 units per acre to 2.8 units per acre. (Ordinance 05-52 erroneously states 2.6 dwelling units per acre). Much of the commercial and residential properties that surround the R-1 district have been developed. The R-1 district is currently a cleared 21.74± acre parcel of land that is surrounded by an existing 6 to 8-foot height wall. As illustrated in the aerial photograph located on page 6 of this Staff Report, the subject R-1 District parcel is bounded to the north by Valewood Drive and then golf course areas within the Quail II PUD, to the east by single-family residences of Longshore Lake, to the south by developed and vacant commercial parcels of Quail II PUD, and to the west by Valewood Drive and then multi-family residences of Quail II PUD. The setbacks are measured from the R-1 tract boundaries. The single-family development proposes a 30-foot setback from the Longshore Lake development, a 15-foot setback from the commercial development to the south and a 20-foot setback from Valewood Drive. The multi- family development proposes a 50-foot setback from the Longshore Lake development, a 20-foot setback from the commercial development to the south and a 50-foot setback from Valewood Drive. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed maximum zoned building height of 35 feet and 2-stories is comparable to the maximum height limits approved for abutting properties which are 35 feet for Huntington PUD and 2-stories for Longshore Lake PUD,respectively. FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to,the surrounding land uses. REZONE FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.08 F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable." (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in non-bold font): PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL II PUD January 28,2014 Page 8of16 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies and future land use map and the elements of the GMP. The Comprehensive Planning Section has indicated that the proposed PUD amendment is consistent with all applicable provisions of the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). 2. The existing land use pattern. As described in the"Surrounding Land Use and Zoning"portion of this report and discussed in the zoning review analysis, the neighborhood's existing land use pattern can be characterized as residential and commercial. There is residential zoning to the north, east and the west;to the south, it is commercial. The uses proposed in this petition should not create incompatibility issues. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts. The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject property is already zoned PUD. Additionally, the zoning boundary mirrors the existing property ownership boundary. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed district boundaries are logically drawn. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed amendment necessary. The proposed change is not necessary, but the proposed rezoning appears to be appropriate for this location based upon the site's FLUE designation. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood. Staff is of the opinion that the proposed change, with the commitments made by the applicant, is consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. Therefore, the proposed change should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development,or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time. This project was evaluated for GMP consistency as shown in that section of this Staff Report. In PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL II PUD January 28,2014 Page 9 of 16 addition, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem. The proposed change should not create drainage or surface water problems because the LDC specifically addresses prerequisite development standards that are designed to reduce the risk of flooding on nearby properties. Any proposed water management and drainage system will need to be designed to prevent drainage problems on site and be compatible with the adjacent water management systems. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas. If this petition were approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. This project's property development regulations would encourage compact development thus the developed project should not significantly reduce light and air to adjacent areas; thus the development proposed, if approved, should not negatively affect light and air permeation into adjacent areas. 10. Whether the proposed change would adversely affect property values in the adjacent area. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market value. There is no guarantee that the project will be marketed in a manner comparable to the surrounding developments. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations. Properties around this property are already mostly developed. The basic premise underlying all of the development standards in the Land Development Code is that their sound application, when combined with the site development plan approval process and/or subdivision process, gives reasonable assurance that a change in zoning will not result in deterrence to improvement or development of adjacent property. Therefore, the proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasted with the public welfare. The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting Zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact,the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL II PUD January 28,2014 Page 10 of 16 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning. The property already has a PUD zoning designation and could be developed within the parameters of that zoning ordinance; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such amendments. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed rezone meets the intent of the PUD district and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the county. As noted previously, the R-1 Tract boundary is within the existing PUD zoning and property ownership boundary. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether it is impossible to find other adequate sites in the county for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. There may be other sites in the County that could accommodate the uses proposed; however, this is not the determining factor when evaluating the appropriateness of a PUD amendment. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Any development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration and this project will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County GMP and as defined and implemented through the Collier County adequate public facilities ordinance. The project will have to meet all applicable criteria set forth in LDC Section 6.02.00 regarding Adequate Public Facilities and the project will need to be consistent with all applicable goals and objectives of the GMP regarding adequate public facilities, except as it may be exempt by federal regulations. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL II PUD January 28,2014 Page 11 of 16 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners shall deem important in the protection of the public health,safety and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. PUD FINDINGS: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the Planning Commission shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria:" 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water,and other utilities. The abutting tracts are developed with residential and commercial development. The proposed uses in this project are compatible with those uses. The development is located on Valewood Drive with a portion of development on Executive Lane, a local roadway, with access to Immokalee Road, a principal arterial roadway. The project would also be required to comply with County regulations regarding drainage, sewer, water and other utilities. Therefore, the site is suitable for the proposed development. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contract, or other instruments, or for amendments in those proposed, particularly as they may relate to arrangements or provisions to be made for the continuing operation and maintenance of such areas and facilities that are not to be provided or maintained at public expense. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the developments will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives and policies of the GMP. County staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals,objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion of this staff report. Based on that analysis, staff is of the opinion that this petition can be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design,and buffering and screening requirements. PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL II PUD January 28,2014 Page 12 of 16 The development standards, landscaping and buffering requirements contained in this petition are designed to make the proposed uses compatible with the adjacent uses. The staff analysis contained in other portions of this staff report support a finding that the uses proposed in this petition will be compatible, both internally and externally. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The existing open space set aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities,both public and private. Currently, the roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. In addition, the project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. This PUD amendment will not adversely change the previous BCC findings that the subject property and surrounding areas can accommodate expansion. 8. 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. The petitioner is seeking three deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06 A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff believes that the three deviations proposed can be supported, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13 A.3.,the petitioner has demonstrated that "the elements may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13 B.5.h., the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviations are "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Please refer to the Deviation Discussion portion of the staff report below for a more extensive examination of the deviations. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking three deviations from general LDC requirements and has provided justification in support of the deviations. Staff has analyzed the deviation requests and provides the analysis and recommendations below: PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL II PUD January 28,2014 Page 13 of 16 Deviation # 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02, "Buffer Requirements," which requires a 15-foot wide Type `B' buffer between residential and commercial uses to permit a 10-foot wide Type `B' buffer along the southern project boundary. Petitioner's Rationale: The wall and buffer are existing. The presence of the wall will provide ample screening and buffering from the adjacent future low intensity commercial uses. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation # 2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.02.A, "Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements," which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks, 5-foot in width,on one side of the street only for private streets. Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation is proposed to apply only for development of single family homes. It is justified in this PUD due to the limited number of single family units authorized to be constructed within the amended portion of the PUD. The infill project will have a gated entry and the internal streets are private. There is also underground infrastructure in place on the site that the developer intends to utilize, which would pose conflicts for a sidewalk on both sides of the street. Underground utility facilities have been constructed in locations that causes the road (inclusive of asphaltic pavement, curb,base course, subgrade and embankment)to be off-set from the centerline of the road right-of-way. This off-set pavement section is required to allow existing pressure utility mains to be ultimately located in the shoulder of the road and not under the pavement and structural pavement base. Not only is locating pressure mains in the shoulders good engineering practice it is also required by the Collier County Utility Ordinance. By placing the road off-set from the center line of the road right-of-way a sidewalk along the off-set side,to meet clear zone requirements, would be located outside the road right-of-way and even if placed in an easement would increase the front setbacks to thirty (30) feet after applying the twenty-three (23) foot garage to sidewalk requirement. This setback would cause almost all the lots on the setback side to become unbuildable. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation # 3 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.01.N, "Street System Requirements" and "Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards," which establishes a 60-foot wide local road to allow a minimum 50-foot wide private road. PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL 11 PUD January 28,2014 Page 14 of 16 Petitioner's Rationale: This deviation was previously approved for the PUD and will allow the developer to provide all required infrastructure within a combination of dedicated right-of-way and easements. All roadways are intended to be private and in a gated community. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends approval finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community" and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The applicant duly noticed and held the required meeting on November 5, 2013 at 5:30 p.m. at the Saint Monica's Church 7070 Immokalee Road,Naples, Florida. Approximately 65 people and the applicant, agent and County Staff attended the meeting. For further information, please refer to Attachment B: Transcript of the NIM. Letters of Objection have been received. Please refer to Attachment D. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for Petition PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891, revised on January 21,2014. -HFAC RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891 to the Board of County Commissioners with a recommendation of approval of this amendment. Attachments: Attachment A: Proposed Ordinance Attachment B: Ordinance Number 05-52 Attachment C: Transcript of the Neighborhood Information Meeting (NIM) Attachment D: Letters of Objection PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL II PUD January 28,2014 Page 15 of 16 PREPARED BY: A/UktinOtAlyk (0 204 NANCY G i1 .L , AICP,PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE } GROWTH .NAMENT DIVISION REVIEWED BY: RAYMONDk . BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION APPROVED BY: NICK CASALANGUIDA, ADMd TISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION PUDZ-A-PL2009-1891,QUAIL II PUD January 10,2013 Page 16 of 16 ORDINANCE NO. 14- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBERS 92-41 AND 05-52, THE QUAIL II PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUP), TO ALLOW 87 SINGLE-FAMILY DETACHED, ATTACHED AND ZERO LOT LINE UNITS OR 152 MULTI-FAMILY DWELLING UNITS AS. PERMITTED USES IN THE RESIDENTIAL (R-1) DISTRICT BY PROVIDING FOR: SECTION ONE, AMENDMENTS TO COVER PAGE; SECTION TWO, AMENDMENTS TO THE TABLE OF CONTENTS/EXHIBITS PAGE; SECTION THREE, AMENDMENT TO STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE SECTION; SECTION FOUR, AMENDMENTS TO PROJECT DESCRIPTION SECTION; SECTION FIVE, AMENDMENTS TO PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECTION INCLUDING A REVISED LEGAL DESCRIPTION AND REMOVAL OF REQUIREMENT TO CONTRIBUTE TO AFFORDABLE HOUSING TRUST FUND FOR UNITS DEVELOPED IN R-1. DISTRICT; PROVIDING FOR ADDITION OF DEVIATIONS; SECTION SIX, AMENDMENTS TO EXHIBIT A, THE PUD MASTER PLAN AND ADDITION OF EXHIBIT B, R-1 DISTRICT MASTER PLAN; AND SECTION SEVEN, EFFECTIVE DATE. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED NORTH OF IMMOKALEE ROAD AND EAST OF VALEWOOD DRIVE IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, [PUDZ-A-PL20090001891J WHEREAS, on June 16, 1992,the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 92-41, which changed the zoning classification of the described property to Quail II PUD; and WHEREAS, on October 11, 2005, the Board of County Commissioners approved Ordinance Number 05-52, which created the Residential R-1 District and changed a tract designation from commercial to multi-family residential for Quail II PUD, and partially repealed Ordinance Number 92-41; and WHEREAS, Westbury Quail Gardens, LLC, represented by D. Wayne Arnold,AICP, of Q. Grady Minor and Associates, P.A.,has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Quail II PUD (Ordinance Number 05-52). Quail II PUD/PUDZ-A-PL20090001891 Rev. 12-19-2013 Page 1 of 12 Words underline are additions;words strack4lifeugh are deletions Attachment A l _ NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, that: SECTION ONE: Amendments to Cover Page of the PUD Document Attached to Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52,the Quail II PUD. The Cover Page of the PUD Document previously attached as Exhibit "A" to Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and05-52, the Quail II PUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: QUAIL II A Planned Unit Development PREPARED BY: WILSON MILLER, INC. WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER 32 BAILEY LANE, SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34105 REVISED BY: D.WAYNE ARNOLD, AICP O.GRADY MINOR AND ASSOCIATES,PA 3800 VIA DEL REY,BONITA SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34134 RICHARD D. YOVANOVICH,ESQUIRE COLEMAN, YOVANOVICH & KOESTER 4001 TAM.IAMI TRAIL N., STE. 300.NAPLES. FLORIDA 34103 REVISED JULY 2013 Date Reviewed by.CCPC: Date Approved by BCC: Ordinance No. Amendments&Repeals: Quail II PUD/PUDZ-A-PL2009000(891 Rev. 12-19-2013 Page 2 of 12 Words underlined are additions;words stielc-threugh are deletions EXHIBIT "A" SECTION TWO: Amendments to the Table of Contents/Exhibits Page of the PUD Document Attached to Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52,the Quail II PUD. The Table of Contents/Exhibits Page of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52, the Quail II PUD, is hereby amended to add as follows: EXHIBITS Exhibit A—PUD Master Plan Exhibit B—R-1 District Master Plan SECTION THREE: Amendment to Statement of Compliance Section I of the PUD Document Attached to Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52, the Quail II PUD. Section I,No. 3, entitled "Statement of Compliance" of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52, the Quail II PUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: 3. The residential portion of the Quail II PUD, which comprises 181.59± acres, is consistent with the FLUE's Density Rating System (DRS). The base density for the Urban Residential Subdistrict is 4 dwelling units (D.U.) per acre which for this 191.34±/acre project equals 777 yields the site eligible for 726 units. Portions Greater than 50% of the PUD (135.55±/acre) are is located within the residential density band associated with Interchange Activity Center #4 (Immokalee Road at I-75), and is therefore allowed to request an. additional 3 units per acre, bringing the PUD potential dwelling unit count to 1271-1-1.83. The total residential dwelling units initially requested (512)equates to 2.8 276 units per acre which is 40%13% of the potential dwelling units allowed by the FLUE _ --- ..- and therefore, the project is consistent with the FLUE - . _ . • . Three hundred sixty (360) residential units have been constructed outside of the R-1 District. The developer has elected to construct up to 87 single-family attached or detached units or up to 152 multi-family units in the R-1 District. SECTION FOUR: Amendments to Project Descriptions Section II of the PUD Document Attached to Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52, the Quail II PUD. Section II, entitled "Project Description" of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52,the Quail II PUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: Quail II PUD/PUDZ-A-P1.20090001891 Rev. 12-19-2013 Page 3 of 12 Words underlined are additions;words skrugh arc deletions 2.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: a. Total dwelling unit count in the areas designated as residential and future residential on the Master Development Plan shall not exceed 512 unit:,360 built units plus 87 proposed single-family units (includes attached and detached) or up to 152 multi-family units in the R-1 District. b. The area designated as"Temporary Sewage Treatment Site,Future Residential and/or Community Facilities" on the revised PUD Master Plan(dated October 30, 1991)shall be limited to a maximum of 60 dwelling units. c. Total dwelling unit count on lands abutting the golf course shall not exceed 300. SECTION FIVE: Amendments to Permitted Uses and Development Standards Section III of the PUD Document Attached to Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52,the Quail H PUD. Section III, entitled, "Permitted Uses and Development Standards" of the PUD Document attached to Ordinance Numbers 92-41 and 05-52, the Quail II PUD, is hereby amended to read as follows: 3.4 RESIDENTIAL R-1 DISTRICT a. Establishment of R-1 District 1. This district is formed within the Quail H PUD to establish development regulations for development Tract R-1 as shown on the PUD Master Plan (Exhibit A) and on the R-1 District Master Plan (Exhibit B). The intent is to provide development regulations for the project area that are consistent with Collier County's development regulations. ■-- - • _ ` -_ . •• .- maximum number of residential units within Quail II PUD from 364 residential units to 512 residential units. b. Legal Description recorded in Plat Book 18, page 71, Public Records of Collier County, Fk cxccpt that portion thereof, compriaing of Quail Creek Plaza Phase 2, Quail II PUDIPUDZ-A-PL20090001891 Rev. 12-19-2013 Page 4 of 12 Words underlined are additions;words stfuek-tiwough are deletions NOINIIIMMINOMMEA and 15, being in Quail Creek Plaza, Phase 2, according to the Plat thereof Florida. Palazzo Village, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book.46, Pages 75 and 76,Public Records of Collier County, Florida. c. Project Development I. Land Uses i. Residential single-family, detached, zero lot line, two-family attached, duplex or multi-family uses shown on the Quail II PUD *plan. ii. Residential unit type classification. Single-family shall consist of detached, zero lot line and two-family and duplex units. Multi- family shall consist of attached townhouse (more than 2 units) and other multi-family units. d. Project Density The total acreage of the R-1 District is approximately 21.74 acres. The maximum number of residential units to be built on the total acreage is 152 multi-family or 87 single-family residential units. The number of dwelling units per gross acre is 7 in the R 1 District. e. Development of Schedule and Sequence The developer willintends to construct the project in one phase. f. Collier County Site Development Plan(SDPs)Approval The review and approval of SDPs shall follow the design and development standards of the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of SDP or construction plans and plat application. g. Dedication and Maintenance of Facilities Roads and other infrastructure may be either public or private, depending on location, capacity, and design. The developer shall create appropriate condominium associations or identify other entities that will be responsible for maintaining the roads, streets, drainage, water, and sewer improvements where such systems are not dedicated to the County. Quail II PUD,IPUDZ-A-PL20090001891 Rev. 12-19-2013 Page 5 of 12 Words underlined are additions;words stftteli-throug h are deletions h. Model Units 1. Model units shall be permitted within this project subject to the following provisions: i. Models may not be utilized as "sales offices" without approval by and through the SDP process. The SDP process shall not be required for dry models. ii. Temporary access and utility easements shall be provided for temporary service to model units. iii. Sales, marketing, and administrative functions are permitted to occur in designated model units within the project only as provided herein. iv. Model homes located in the R-1 area shall be permitted subject to the requirements of Section 5.04.04 of the LDC. Sales Centers 1. Sales centers may be constructed and will follow the review and approval requirements of the SDP process. Access to the sales center shall be provided by a paved road or temporary driveway which meets applicable County standards as determined by the County Engineer. A water management plan shall be provided which accommodates the run-off from the sales center, the required parking and access road/driveway and any other impervious surfaces. 2. At the time of building permit application for the sales center, a temporary use permit shall be obtained. Sales centers may not be occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy(CO)is issued. 3. Sales Centers located in the R-1 area shall be permitted subject to the requirements of Section 5.04.04 of the LDC. j. Development Standards The standards for the construction of all project infrastructure, such as, but not limited to roads, utilities, wastewater treatment, water management facilities, and other site improvements such as but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, landscaping and all similar types of site improvements, except for habitable buildings and structures, shall meet the minimum standards set forth by Collier County in the applicable ordinance or regulation in effect at the time of SDP or construction plans and plat application. Quail II PUD/PUDZ-A-PL20090001891 Rev. 12-19-2013 Page 6 of 12 Words underlined are additions;words through are deletions The standards and development permit procedures for all habitable structures shall be in accordance with the County requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. k. Impact Fees Development within the project shall be subject to all lawfully adopted impact fees in effect at the time of SDP application. Residential R-1 District Residential Uses 1. Purpose: The purpose of this paragraph is to set forth the regulations for the areas designated as "R-1"on the Quail II PUD Master Plan. 2. Maximum Residential Units A maximum number of 152 multi-family or 87 single-family detached, zero lot line, two-family and duplex or single-family attached/townhouse residential units may be constructed on lands designated as"R-1". 3. General Description Areas designated as "R-1" on the Master Land Use Plan are designed to accommodate multi family residential dwelling types, amenity areas. open space . Residential tracts are designed to accommodate and internal roadways. 4. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures i Single-family detached, zero lot line, two-family and duplex, single- family attached/Ttownhouses, multi-family dwellings, and recreation facilities. ii Water management facilities. Lakes, including lakes with seawall and other types of architectural bank treatment. iii Open space recreational activities, and similar uses, including but not limited to shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools, playground, picnic areas and other types of facilities intended for outdoor recreation. m5. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures 4:a. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with uses permitted in multi family residential districts. Gatehouses Quail II PUD,PUDZ-A-PL20090001891 Rev.12-19-2013 Page 7 of 12 Words underlined are additions;words 3truek-tilffough are deletions n6. Development Standards Standards for parking, landscaping, signs, gatehouses, entrance gates and other uses not specified herein are to be in accordance with Collier County LDC in effect at the time of SDP or construction plans and plat application. Front yard setbacks shall be measured as follows: 1-a. If the parcel is served by a County dedicated public right-of-way, the setback of buildings or structures adjacent to the right-of-way is measured from the existing right-of-way line. 2b. If the buildings or structures are served from a private drive or internal roadway, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement,whichever is closer to the structure. e7. Gated Community This 21.74 acre parcel of land will be a gated community. p8. Recreation Facilities Community Rrecreation facilities within the R- 1 development area shall be centrally located in the Amenity Area toward the middle of the prepertyas identified on the R-1 District Master Plan. q9. Garages Each residential dwelling unit shall have a one (1) or two (2)-car garage. Each residential dwelling unit adjacent to Valewood Drive shall have a two(2)-car garage. In the R-1 area,all units shall have garages. R10. Roofing Materials Asphalt shingles are prohibited as a roofing material throughout the development. sl 1. Developer Commitments In addition to the PUD requirements, the project's developer is committed to place the following items in the project's Condominium Documents, Declaration of Codes Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, or other appropriate Home Owner's association documents: Quail H PIJD/PUDZ-A-PL20090001891 Rev. 12-19-2013 Page 8 of 12 Words underlined are additions;words truck through are deletions i. The development will contribute its proportional share (12%) for lake maintenance for stormwater management to Longshore Lake Foundation. ii, Leasing of any condominium shall be subject to the following time periods: All leases shall be for a period of not less than ninety (90) consecutive days. No residential unit may be rented for more than three (3)times in any calendar year. iii. The project will be an equal partner(1/5) in the Valewood Drive Landscape Maintenance Agreement. iv. The developer, or its successors or assigns, shall pay the sum of u� .. _. - .. --• • . .. . . - -- r.. - . --.. ; .. within seven (7) days of the initial closing on the respective located within the R 1 District of this PUD. 12. Deviations Applicable to the R-1 District i. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02, Buffer Requirements, which requires a 15 foot wide type `B' buffer between residential and commercial uses to permit a 10 foot wide type `B' buffer along the southern project boundary. ii. Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.02.A, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements. which requires sidewalks to be constructed on both sides of local streets, to allow sidewalks, 5 foot in width, on one side of the street only for private streets. iii. Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Subsection 6.06.01.0, Street System Requirements and Appendix B, Typical Street Sections and Right-of-Way Design Standards, which establishes a 60 foot wide local road to allow a minimum 50' wide private road. Quail II PUD/PUDZ-A-PL20090001891 Rev. 12-19-2013 Page 9 of 12 Words underlined are additions;words s -through are deletions R 1 Residential Multi Family Areas Category Minimum Site Area 1 Acres 150 Feet .' !.. 150 Feet Setbacks 50 Feet East Boundary 50 Feet Internal Drives 20 Feet Commercial Tract 20 Feet Side Yard Setb ck 1/2 The Height of the Principal.Structure • 20 Feet 10 Feet Two(2)stories,not exceeding 35 feet ■ .. ': - ... _ 15'*1 1 story 25'*1 2 3 stories Quail 11 PUD/PUDZ-A-PI-20090001891 Rev. 12-19-2013 Page 10 of 12 Words underlined are additions;words ttnick througl are deletions 1 DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS TABLE R-1 RESIDENTIAL AREAS STANDARDS SINGLE- SINGLE- I WO AMENITY FAMILY FAMILY FAMILY& MULTI- SITE DETACHED ZERO DUPLEX FAMILY (OPTIONAL) LOT LINE Minimum Lot Area 5,000 SF 4.000 SF 3,000 SF 1 ACRE 10,000 SF Minimum Lot Width 50 feet 40 feet 35 feet 150 feet N/A Minimum.Lot Depth 100 feet 100 feet 100 feet 150 feet N/A Minimum Setbacks(Principal) Front Yard(1) 20 feet()) 20 feet()) 20 feet(() 20 feet()) N/A Side Yard(4) 5 feet 0 feet 5 feet %2 sum of bldg. N/A height Rear Yard 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 20 feet N/A East Boundary(Longshore Lake) 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 50 feet 20 feet South Boundary(Commercial) 15 feet 15 feet 15 feet 20 feet N/A West Boundary(Valewood Drive) 20 feet 20 feet 20 feet 50 feet 20 feet Internal Drives N/A N/A N/A 20 feel 20 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 35 feet(2 stories) 30 feet Actual 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet 40 feet(2 stories) 40 feet Minimum Distance Between Structures One Story N/A N/A N/A 15 feet 10 feet Two Story N/A N/A N/A 25 feet(3) 20 feet Minimum Floor Area(A/C) 1775 SF 1500 SF 1500 S.F 1500 SF N/A j r ,,3 miK k -1!: e pp p 2- t v..< v „"':. 4: > r x r - a ` •. � +u + , - T X f a` V « ' ''. F { �3*ACCESS RYAitt a�8. g 41 :” � I. ti 4; ,�" T_ � -W*K4_ e p b� a�4 ux- Minimum Front Yard Setback 20 feet(1) 20 feet(') 20 feet(') 20 feet())� 20 feet(') Minimum. Side Yard Setback 5 feet 0 feet 0 feet 5 feet 10 feet Minimum Rear Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet East Boundary(Longshore 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 10 feet 10 feet Lake) Minimum Distance Between Structures 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet 10 feet Maximum Building Height Zoned 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet 25 feet Actual 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet 30 feet (')Measured to edge of sidewalk.to edge of pavement or back of curb if no sidewalk(SF front entry garages shall have 23' front setback). (2)Structures such as gate houses,walls and decorative architectural treatments shall have no setback from property line. (3)Or 1/2 x average building height,whichever is greater. (4)Must be at least 10 feet between structures. Quail II PUD/PUDZ-A-PL20090001891 Rev. 12-19-2013 Page 11 of 12 Words underlined are additions;words strae ough are deletions I SECTION SIX: Amendments to Exhibit A of the PUD Document, the PUD Master Plan, and Addition of Exhibit B,the R-1 District Master Plan. The "PUD Master Plan," labeled Exhibit A, is hereby amended and a new Exhibit B, R-1 District Master Plan, is hereby adopted,both attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. SECTION SEVEN: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida,this day of ,2014. ATTEST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK, CLERK COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk , Chairman Approved as to form and legality: k Heidi F.Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Original.Master Plan Exhibit B—R-1 Master Plan 09-CPS-00991/87 Quail 11 PUD/PUDZ.-A-PL20090001891 Rev. 12-19-2013 Page 12 of 12 Words underlined are additions;words dial etigh are deletions I QUAIL CREEK ESTATES AND COUNTRY CLUB (PUD)' ."-- - ----A W / t. 9 i ..... _.- _ o il nn V 8 u HUNTINGTON ; LONGSHORE LAKES LAKE ( PUD ) i ( PUD) j o • i / 1 q V,.,• -\r� m Q {u a i •15 BUFFER MAY SE REDUCED TO 10'IF CEVELOPEO WTH SAME FAMI.V HOMES Cs .. � _ to 11 j a a °-7 i g ; i 1 ! 1 Vines&Associates,Inc.,tandPtsnrer Arthur HiIls&Associsles,Inc. Golf Course Arrhltecla I 1 i COMMERCIAL Wilson MRler Inc Ate COMMERCIAL EXHIBIT `A' fOE CANAL SIGHT OF WAY ..."“s7K'1 74aprJ. ttC•\Lr • , .■..... GOLDEN GATE ESTATES QUAIL II - PUD MASTER PLAN FOR MULTI-FAMILY AND SINGLE FAMILY . - - A Portion of Section 20, Twp.48 S,Rge. 25 E • MAXIMUM DEVELOPMENT INTENSITY / / J j FOR R-1 DISTRICT: UP TO 152 MULTI-FAMILY OR 87 SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNITS (INCLUDES ATTACHED, // / DETACHED, ZERO LOT LINE. TWO-FAMILY ATTACHED AND DUPLEX) AS DESCRIBED IN QUAIL II PUD ORDINANCE, / �� SECTION 3.4. / `15'BUFFER MAY BE REDUCED TO 10'IF DEVELOPED WITH SINGLE FAMILY HOMES. / // DEVIATIONS // /' (7_!SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SECTION 4.06.02,"BUFFER REQUIREMENTS',WHICH REQUIRES A ' // AMENITY' ' 15-FOOT WIDE TYPE'B'BUFFER BETWEEN RESIDENTIAL AND COMMERCIAL USES TO PERMIT A / _ 1, AREA 10-FOOT WIDE TYPE'8'BUFFER ALONG THE SOUTHERN PROJECT BOUNDARY. / i SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SUBSECTION 6.06.02,A,°SIDEWALKS.BIKE LANE �/ AND PATHWAY REQUIREMENTS", WHICH REQUIRES SIDEWALKS TO BE /��/ j� I CONSTRUCTED ON BOTH SIDES OF LOCAL STREETS;TO ALLOW SIDEWALKS, l \ 5-FOOT IN WIDTH, ON ONE SIDE OF THE STREET ONLY FOR PRIVATE � � '� \ I STREETS, ~/ SEEKS RELIEF FROM LDC SUBSECTION •�" / 6.06.01,N, "STREET SYSTEM REQUIREMENTS" // i/ / la it AND`APPENDIX B.TYPICAL STREET SECTIONS / / , • AND RIGHT-OF-WAY DESIGN STANDARDS, / / /'1, WHICH ESTABLISHES A 50-FOOT WIDE LOCAL '/// / j I ROAD TO ALLOW A MINIMUM 50-FOOT WIDE/// } 1n PRIVATE ROAD.(PREVIOUSLY APPROVED) / / //// I I w QUAIL CREEK /\/ / / , ,, , l3 yi ar ESTATES AND / 15'TYPE B BUFFER= \ ` N a COUNTRY CLUB // '� ,...W/6'-8'I4IGH WALL'I' \ \ 15'TYPE'B'B FFER • W •(PUD) / / W/6'-8'HIG WteLL ` cc �/ / /// 1 (EXISTING WoIL TO I Q // / / REMAIN) 1 I I —I/i/% / 21.74 G.± ` a o •R-1 DIS RIOT I 0 l / ! t S, OC31' i W 0 �I N I U — 1 I 10'TYPE'B'BUFFER _ I nom! ' I I W/6'-8'HIGH WALL ill I I I E.i I I I I 11 9 I I COMMERCIAL PROPERTIES 5. ��'Jim _��_—_= 1 I Y ›, (-- ` ! I I I 1 I 1 I I N 5 1 L____1_ _ _______ _______ 1. 1 I i ; _ . ,4 I 1 1 COCOHATCHEE CANAL I n J (100' R/W) I 0 100' 200' 1& ! l-, _— — -IMMOKALEE ROAD �Z SCALE: 1"=200' QUAIL If PUD `�"` ga �] *I try ^ 0.crv.y vm.,,n,N n.,,wlr.n.r.,. __.. a G Pa�.1y1V�1130 1. AN!Yk UN.Nry ton GP.e 1WG!u*,1"yr,,Murk*31131 3"' LXHISIT ' 5' °1 3 u. '"011to"....11, Civil Eu @hnr1 • Land Spnrn,s • Finnan • Latai.con Arcbtet9• R DI S TRICT ■ GM1N4NN/1MN5151. GTI 43 3 I.GMINSISI G.M.1C 211=26G C,.. 'T't GW il MASTER ?LAN a. w - &,MIRS1vIN+{+236.34'!.1114 Ir.1;ra,/1'14 fn or.en in r,M V,n:234.tlNpi36p ___....., 4 ouSJ %, L ORDINANCE NO.OS- 52 -/SZblE AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 04-41, AS AMENDED, THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE, WHICH INCLUDES THE COMPREHENSIVE ZONING REGULATIONS FOR THE UNINCORPORATED AREA OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, BY AMENDING THE APPROPRIATE ZONING ATLAS MAP OR MAPS BY CHANGING THE ZONING CLASSIFICATION OF THE HEREIN DESCRIBED REAL PROPERTY FROM PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) TO PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT (PUD) KNOWN AS THE QUAIL II PUD, TO CHANGE A TRACT DESIGNATION FROM COMMERCIAL TO MULTI- FAMILY RESIDENTIAL, FOR A MAXIMUM OF 152 ADDITIONAL DWELLING UNITS, FOR PROPERTY LOCATED IN SECTION 20, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 21.74 ACRES;PROVIDING FOR THE PARTIAL REPEAL OF ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-41, THE EXISTING QUAIL II PUD ORDINANCE;AND BY PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Valewood Properties, LLC, represented by Bruce E. Tyson, AICP, of WilsonMiller, Inc., has petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to change the zoning classification of the herein described real property. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: The zoning classification of the herein described real property located in Section 20, Township 48 South,Range 26 East,Collier County,Florida,is changed fromTUD 1`,4o "PUD," in accordance with the additions and deletions to Ordinance Number 92-41,tlt Qual PLIQ as reflected in the PUD Document,attached hereto as Exhibit"A,"which is incoro rated herein and r by reference made part hereof. The appropriate zoning atlas map or maps; as &Sscr in Ordinance Number 2004-41, as amended, the Collier County Land Develont Cpde, is/are - hereby amended accordingly. SECTION TWO: Ordinance Number 92-41,known as the Quail II PUD,adopted on June 16, 1992,by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,is hereby repealed only to the extent that the Ordinance is inconsistent with the additions and deletions set forth in the Quail II PUD Words etrsusk-through are deleted;words underlined are added. Page 1 of 2 Attachment B Document attached hereto as Exhibit "A". All other provisions of Ordinance Number 92-41 shall remain in full force and effect. SECTION THREE: This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Florida Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this j_ day of OG Er ,2005. ATTEST:. ., BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E.BROOK;CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA I i1: � 117 1 /dOC BY: W DI;PUT CLERK FRED W.COYLE,CHAI Attest at to Chairman's 'signature only Approved as to form and legal sufficiency: _a Qn to Marjodie M.Student-Stirling Assistant County Attorney PUDA-2005-AR-7152/H W/sp This ordinance filed with the !to,ry of t t s Officg the yo �,ci[YJl and ocknowledgeme that fill L e ive d this day of APB'4i_ 1.7441 ,` n Oeouty CY.1 Words st ek-threttgh are deleted;words underlined are added. Page 2 of 2 QUAIL II A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT PREPARED BY: VINES &ASSOCIATES, INC. 715 TENTH STREET SOUTH NAPLES, FLORIDA 33940 PHONE: (813) 262-4164 and WILSONMILLER, INC. WILSON PROFESSIONAL CENTER 3200 BAILEY LANE, SUITE 200 NAPLES, FL 34105 DATE REVIEWED BY CCPC 2/20/92 DATE APPROVED BY BCC 6/16/92 ORDINANCE NUMBER 92-41 AMENDMENTS REVIEWED BY CCPC 9/01/05 AMENDMENT APPROVED BY BCC i n-1 >-n ORDINANCE NUMBER 2005-52 EXHIBIT "A" C5-, R-7152. PUD Document.9-30-05 TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE SECTION I STATEMENT OF COMPLIANCE WITH GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2 SECTION III PREMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 4 SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 18 PUD MASTER PLAN ATTACHMENT 1 PUDA-2005-AR-7 1 52.PUD DDcumert.9-30-05 SECTION I _ • „ . _. A • Statement of Compliance: 1. The development of this Project will be in compliance with the planning goals and objectives of Collier County, as set forth in the Future Land Use Element. The Quail II PUD is located within the urban residential subdistrict. The Quail II PUD includes commercial property zoned prior to the adoption of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (January 10, 1989), which has been found to be consistent through the Zoning Re-evaluation Program, and, which property is designated on the Future Land Use Map Series as Properties Consistent By Policy. Therefore, the location of commercial uses within this PUD is in compliance with the Growth Management Plan. 3. The residential portion of the Quail II PUD is consistent with the FLUE's Density Rating System (DRS). The base density for the Urban Residential Subdistrict is 4 dwelling units (du) nor acre which for this 194.34+/- acre project equals 777 units. Portions of the PUD (135.55+/- acres) are located within the residential density band associated with Interchange Activity Center #4 (Immokalee Road at 1-75), and is therefore allowed to request an additional 3 units per acre. bringing the PUD potential dwelling unit count to 1183. The total residential dwelling units requested (512) equates to 2.6 units per acre which is 43% of the potential dwelling units allowed by the Growth Management Plan and therefore, the project is consistent with the Growth Management Plan. �. This project shall be subject to applicable sections of the LDC at the time of development order approval. except as otherwise provided herein. The Quail II PUD is a master planned community and is planned to encourage ingenuity, 'nnovation and imagination as set forth in the Land Development Code (LDC) Planned Unit Development District. �. All final local development orders for this project are subject to the Collier County .,neouate Public Facilities Ordinance, Sections 6.02.00 and 10.02.07 of the LDC. AR-7152.PUD Document,9-30-05 SECTION II PROJECT DESCRIPTION 2.1 DISTRICT ZONE: PUD: This project may be comprised of a mixture of commercial uses, residential uses, and community facilities. 2.2 MAXIMUM DWELLING UNITS: a. Total dwelling unit count in the areas designated as residential and future residential on the Master Development Plan shall not exceed 368 512 units. b. The area designated as "Temporary Sewage Treatment Site, Future Residential and/or Community Facilities" on the revised PUD Master Plan (dated October 30, 1991) shall be limited to a maximum of 60 dwelling units. c. Total dwelling unit count on lands abutting the golf course shall not exceed 300. 2.3 DWELLING UNIT DISTRIBUTION: Prior to issuance of building permits for dwelling units, a detailed plan showing building locations, building heights, number of dwelling units per building, access drives and offstreet parking shall be prepared, submitted to, and approved by the Director. 2.4 SUBDIVISION MASTER PLAN: The approved Quail II Master Plan shall constitute the approved Subdivision Master Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat, as appropriate, for the golf course and residential complex. A Subdivision Master Plan or Preliminary Subdivision Plat, as appropriate, for the commercially designated property shall be submitted to the County for administrative review by staff. The plan shall meet the requirements of the Subdivision Regulations and the PUD Document. 2.5 EXCEPTIONS TO COUNTY SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS: a. Article X, Section 19: Street name signs shall be approved by the County Engineer, but need not meet the U.S.D.O.T.F.H.W.A. Manual of Uniform Traffic. -2- PUDA-2005-AR-7152.PUD Document.9-30-05 Control Devices. Street pavement painting, striping, and reflective edging requirements shall be waived. b. Article X, Section 24; The requirement to place permanent reference monuments and permanent control points in a typical water valve cover where such monuments occur within the street pavement areas shall be waived. c. Article XI, Section 17F. & G.: All streets other than the existing principal entrance drive shall be classified as local. Local streets shall be comprised of a 20 ft. wide travelway within a 50 ft. wide privately owned street right of way commons. d. Article XI, Section 17.H: The 1,000 ft. maximum dead-end street length requirement shall be waived. An emergency vehicle access way shall be provided which connects the southernmost residential access drive to Valewood Drive. e. Article XI, Section 17.1: The requirement for curbs at all residential street intersections shall be waived and concrete valley gutters shall be permitted as a substitute, except at intersections of the residential streets with Valewood Drive or SR 846. Edge of pavement radii at street intersections shall be 30 ft. f. Article XI, Section 17.K: The requirement for 100 ft. tangent sections between reverse curves of streets shall be waived. 9. Article XI, Section 21: The requirement for blank utility casings shall be waived. -3- --2005-AR-7152.RM Document.9-30-05 SECTION III PERMITTED USES AND DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 3.1 RESIDENTIAL AREAS a. Permitted Uses and Structures 1. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: Attached and detached single family structures; multi-family dwellings; recreational open space; golf course and golf club complex, including indoor and outdoor social, recreational, dining, and service facilities; golf course maintenance facilities. 2. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: Accessory uses and structures which are customary in golf course and multi-family residential communities; administrative, sales and rental offices, which offices may be located in temporary or permanent structures; access control gates at points of residential street connection with Valewood Drive. b. Development Standards: 1. Residential Areas: a) Minimum building setback from street; 50 ft. from back of curb for 3- or 4- story multi-family structures; 40 ft. from back of curb for 2-story single family or multi-family structures; 30 ft. from back of curb of 1-story single family or multi-family structures; 20 ft. from back of curb for garages and other accessory structures, whether freestanding or attached to a residence. b) Minimum setbacks of structures from golf course: None c) Minimum separation between adjoining 1-and/or 2-story structures: 8 ft. d) Minimum separation between a principal structure and its accessory structures: 5 ft. unless structurally joined. e) Minimum separation between accessory structures: 5 ft. unless structurally joined. f) Minimum side yards for all other circumstances other than between adjoining 1-and/or 2-story structures: One-half the building height, but not less than 15 ft. g) Maximum building height: Four living floors -4- PUDA-2005-AR-7152.DUD Doc_-ent,9-30-05 h) Minimum dwelling unit floor area: 1,000 sq. ft. i) Minimum offstreet parking spaces: 2 spaces per dwelling unit. j) In the case of cluster buildings with a common architectural theme, the above distances may be reduced provided the site plan is approved by the Community Development Director. 2. Golf Course and Golf Club Areas: a) Maximum golf club building height: 2 stories. b) Minimum separation between clubhouse and street: 75 ft. from back of curb. c) Minimum separation between tennis courts or other recreational equipment from back of curb: 25 ft. d) Minimum separation between a community swimming pool or community recreation structure and street: 25 ft. from back of curb. e) Minimum separation between clubhouse, other recreation building, pool, tennis court, or other recreation equipment and a residential structure: 25 ft. -5- •305-AR-7152,PUD Document,9-30-05 • 3.2 TEMPORARY SEWAGE TREATMENT SITE: FUTURE RESIDENTIAL AND/OR COMMUNITY FACILITIES AREA. a. Permitted Uses and Structures: 1. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: Temporary sewage treatment plant; attached and detached single-family structures; and multi-family dwellings. 2. Permitted Conditional Uses and Structures: The following uses listed under Section 2.2.19, Community Facility District, of the Collier County Land Development Code: child care centers, churches and houses of worship, civic and cultural facilities, museums, nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities (ACLFs) in accordance with Section 2.6.26, Location Requirements for Group Housing, of the Collier County Land Development Code and Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, parks and playgrounds, non-commercial recreation facilities; open space uses, tennis facilities, community centers, private clubs, and social and fraternal organizations; and residential facilities for elderly persons in accordance with Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan. 3. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: Accessory uses and structures which are customary in multi-family residential communities; and in association with community facilities; administrative, sales and rental offices, which offices may be located in temporary or permanent structures; access control gates at points of residential street connection with Valewood Drive. b. Development Standards: For residential development, as required by the development standards listed under Paragraph 3.1b, Section Ill, Permitted Uses and Development Standards, of the Quail II PUD Document; for permitted community facilities development, as required by the development standards listed under Section 2.2.19, Community Facility District, of the Collier County Land Development Code; for residential facilities for elderly persons, in accordance with Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan, as established during the Site Development Plan approval process, however, no building shall be higher than 30 ft. in height. -6- PUDA-2005-AR-7152,PUD Docume°t.9-30-05 3.3 COMMERCIAL AREAS a. Permitted Uses and Structures: 1. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures: Commercial uses as listed in the C-3, Commercial Intermediate District, provided that automobile service stations may incorporate convenience food and beverage sales and mechanical car wash facilities. Automobile service stations shall otherwise comply with the standards set forth in Section 2.6.28. of the Collier County Land Development Code. Residential facilities for elderly persons in accordance with Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan are permitted. Nursing homes and adult congregate living facilities (ACLFs) in accordance with Section 2.6.26, Location Requirements for Group Housing, of the Collier County Land Development Code and Policy 5.8 of the Future Land Use Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan are also permitted. 2. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures: Accessory uses and structures which are customary in commercial areas; administrative, sales and rental offices, which offices may be located in temporary or permanent structures; access control gates at points of residential street connection with Valewood Drive. b. Development Standards: Yard requirements, building height, minimum building floor area, landscape requirements, signs, lights, and related development features shall be subject to development plan approval as set forth in Division 3.3 of the Collier County Land Development Code. The C-3, Commercial Intermediate District, regulations shall be the controlling standards used to determine whether or not development plan approval shall be granted. -7- -2J05-AR-7152.BUD Document,9-30-05 3.4 RESIDENTIAL R-1 DISTRICT a. Establishment of R-1 District 1. This district is formed within the Quail II PUD to establish development regulations for development Tract R-1 as shown on the PUD Master Plan. The intent is to provide development regulations for the project area that are consistent with Collier County's development regulations. The original PUD zoning for this tract was commercial and the conversion of this tract to residential use will increase the maximum number of residential units within Quail II PUD from 360 residential units to 512 residential units. b. Legal Description 1. Lots 10 and 11, Quail Creek Plaza, Phase 2, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 18, page 71, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, And Tract B, Quail Creek Plaza, Phase 1, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 15, page 73, Public Records of Collier County, Florida, less and except that portion thereof, comprising of Quail Creek Plaza Phase 2, according to the Plat thereof, recorded in Plat Book 18, page 71, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida, and less & except a rectangular parcel of land 93.04 feet in North-South dimensions and 225.23 feet in East- West dimensions, and totally abutting on its South side the north boundary of Lot 15, and the north boundary of the west 40 feet of Lot 14, both lots 14 and 15, being in Quail Creek Plaza, Phase 2, according to the Plat thereof recorded in Plat Book 18, page 71, of the Public Records of Collier County, Florida. c. Project Development 1. Land Uses i. Residential multi-family uses shown on the Quail II PUD Master Plan. d. Project Density The total acreage of the R-1 District is approximately 21.74 acres. The maximum number of residential units to be built on the total acreage is 152. The number of dwelling units per gross acre is 7 in the R-1 District. • -8- PUDA-2005-AR-7152,PUD Document.9-30-05 e. Development of Schedule and Sequence The developer will construct the project in one phase_ f. Collier County Site Development Plan (SDPs) The review and approval of SDPs shall follow the design and development standards of the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of SDP application. Dedication and Maintenance of Facilities Roads and other infrastructure may be either public or private, depending on location, capacity, and design. The developer shall create appropriate condominium associations or identify other entities that will be responsible for maintaining the roads, streets, drainage, water, and sewer improvements where such systems are not dedicated to the County. h. Model Units 1. Model units shall be permitted within this project subject to the following provisions: i. Models may not be utilized as "sales offices"without approval by and through the SDP process. The SDP process shall not be required for dry models. ii. Temporary access and utility easements shall be provided for temporary service to model units. iii. Sales, marketing, and administrative functions are permitted to occur in designated model units within the project only as provided herein. Sales Centers 1. Sales centers may be constructed and will follow the review and approval requirements of the SDP process. Access to the sales center shall be provided by a paved road or temporary driveway which meets applicable County standards as determined by the County Engineer. A water management plan shall be provided which accommodates the run-off from the sales center, the required parking and access road/driveway and any other impervious surfaces. 2. At the time of building permit application for the sales center, a temporary use permit shall be obtained. Sales centers may not be occupied until a Certificate of Occupancy (CO) is issued. -9- 2005-AR-7152,PUD Document.9-30-05 Development Standards The standards for the construction of all project infrastructure, such as, but not limited to roads, utilities, wastewater treatment, water management facilities, and other site improvements such as but not limited to clearing, grading, excavation, landscaping and all similar types of site improvements, except for habitable buildings and structures, shall meet the minimum standards set forth by Collier County in the applicable ordinance or regulation in effect at the time of SDP application. The standards and development permit procedures for all habitable structures shall be in accordance the County requirements in effect at the time of building permit application. k• Impact Fees Development within the project shall be subject to all lawfully adopted impact fees in effect at the time of SDP application. I• Residential R-1 District 1. Purpose: The purpose of this paragraph is to set forth the regulations for the areas designated as 'R-1"on the Quail II PUD Master Plan. 2. Maximum Residential Units A maximum number of 152 residential units may be constructed on lands designated as "R-1". 3. General Description Areas designated as "R-1" on the Master Land Use Plan are designed to accommodate multi-family residential dwelling types. Residential tracts are designed to accommodate internal roadways. 4. Permitted Principal Uses and Structures i. Townhouses, multi-family dwellings, and recreation facilities. ii. Water management facilities. Lakes, including lakes with seawall and other types of architectural bank treatment. -10- PUDA-2005-AR-7152,PUD Document.9-30-05 iii. Open space recreational activities, and similar uses, including but not limited to shuffleboard courts, tennis courts, swimming pools. playground, picnic areas and other types of facilities intended for outdoor recreation. m. Permitted Accessory Uses and Structures 1. Accessory uses and structures customarily associated with uses permitted in multi-family residential districts. 2. Gatehouses n. Development Standards Standards for parking, landscaping, signs, gatehouses, entrance gates and other uses not specified herein are to be in accordance with Collier County LDC in effect at the time of SDP application. Front yard setbacks shall be measured as follows: 1. If the parcel is served by a County dedicated public right-of-way, the setback of buildings or structures adjacent to the right-of-way is measured from the existing right-of-way line. 2. If the buildings or structures are served from a private drive, the setback is measured from the back of curb or edge of pavement, whichever is closer to the structure. o• Gated Community This 21.74 acre parcel of land will be a gated community. o Recreation Facilities Recreation facilities within the development shall be centrally located toward the middle of the property. Garages Each residential dwelling unit shall have a one (1) or two (2)-car garage. Each residential dwelling unit adjacent to Valewood Drive shall have a two (2)-car garage. r. Roofing Materials Asphalt shingles are prohibited as a roofing material throughout the development. -11- 2005 AR-7152,PUD Document.9-30-05 s. Developer Commitments In addition to the PUD requirements. the project's developer is committed to place the following items in the project's Condominium Documents, Declaration of Codes Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions, or other appropriate Home Owner's association documents: i. The development will contribute its proportional share (12%) for lake maintenance for stormwater management to Lonqshore Lake Foundation. ii. Leasing of any condominium shall be subject to the following time periods: All leases shall be for a period of not less than ninety (90) consecutive days. No residential unit may be rented for more than three (3) times in any calendar year. iii. The project will be an equal partner(1/5) in the Valewood Drive Landscape Maintenance Agreement. iv. The developer, or its successors or assigns, shall pay the sum of $1,000.00 per residential dwelling unit to the Collier County Affordable Housing Trust Fund. These payments shall be made within seven (7) days of the initial closing on the respective residential units. This condition only applies to the residential units located within the R-1 District of this PUD. -12- PU DA-2005-AR-7152.PUD Document.9-30-05 Development Standards R-1 Residential Multi-Family Areas Category Dimensional Requirement Minimum Site Area 1 Acre Site Width — Minimum Average 150 Feet Site Depth — Minimum Average 150 Feet Setbacks Valewood Drive 50 Feet East Boundary 50 Feet Internal Drives 20 Feet Commercial Tract 20 Feet Side Yard Setback '/2 The Height of the Principal Structure Rear Yard Setback—Principal Structure 20 Feet Rear Yard Setback—Accessory Structure 10 Feet Maximum Buildinq_Height Two (2) stories. not exceeding 35 feet Distance Between Principal Structures 15' "`1 — 1 story 25' *1 —2-3 stones Minimum Building Area 1670 square feet (air-conditioned) '1 or'/2 the sum of the adjacent buildings, whichever is greater. 3.5 GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS The purpose of this paragraph is to set forth the development commitments of the project. a. PUD MASTER PLAN The PUD Master Plan is an illustrative plan. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities. b. ENVIRONMENTAL Petitioner shall obtain all necessary local, state and federal permits. Development shall proceed in accordance with the contents of this Document, applicable sections of the Growth Management Plan and the regulations in the Collier County LDC in effect at the time of issuance of any development orders to which said regulations relate, such as, but not limited to final site development plan, excavation permit and preliminary work authorization. Where these regulations fail to provide development standards, the provisions of the most similar district in the Land Development Code shall apply. Environmental permitting is not anticipated. However, if required, environmental permitting shall be in accordance with the State of Florida Environmental Resource Permit Rules, as well as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Section 404 permitting program. -13- =-..005-AR-7152.PUD Document,9-30-05 • An exotic vegetation eradication, monitoring, and maintenance (exotic free) plan for the site shall be submitted to Community Development and Environmental Services (CDES) Environmental Staff for review and approval prior to final SDP approval. c. WATER MANAGEMENT Detailed paving, grading, and site drainage plans shall be submitted as part of the SDP application. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by CDES Engineering Services Department. The property is the subject of South Florida Water Management District Permit Number 11-00420-S. This permit allows for the stormwater flows from this property to exit to the east through an existing piping system to the Longshore Lake Project. According to the permit, no stormwater retention is needed on this property. Final permitting will require a modification to this Permit to describe the new development and its proposed stormwater management system. All agreements regarding control elevations or discharge rates shall be made with SFWMD/Big Cypress Basin. d. TRANSPORTATION 1. All traffic control devices, signs, pavement markings and design criteria shall be in accordance with Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) Manual of Uniform Minimum Standards (MUMS), current edition, FDOT Design Standards, current edition, and the Manual On Uniform Traffic Control Devices (MUTCD), current edition. All other improvements shall be consistent with and as required by the Collier County LDC. 2. Arterial level street lighting shall be provided at all access points. Access lighting shall be in place prior to the issuance of the first CO. 3. Access points, including both driveways and proposed streets, shown on the PUD Master Plan are considered to be conceptual. Nothing depicted on any such Master Plan shall vest any right of access at any specific point along any property frontage. All such access issues shall be approved or denied during the review of required subsequent SDP or final plat submissions. All such access shall be consistent with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Res. 01-247), as it may be amended from time to time, and with the Collier County Long-Range Transportation Plan. The number of access points constructed may be less than the number depicted on the Master Plan; however, no additional access points shall be considered unless a PUD amendment is processed. -14- PUDA-2005-AR-7152,PUD Document.9-30-05 4. Site- related improvements (as opposed to system-related improvements) necessary for safe ingress and egress to this project, as determined by Collier County Transportation Division, shall not be eligible for impact fee credits. All required improvements shall be in place and available to the pubic prior to the issuance of the first CO. 5. Road impact fees shall be paid in accordance with Collier County Ordinance 01-13, as amended, and Chapter 74 of the Code of Laws & Ordinances as amended. 6. All work within Collier County rights-of-way or public easements shall require a right-of-way permit. 7. All proposed median opening locations shall be in accordance with the Collier County Access Management Policy (Resolution 01-247), as it may be amended, and the LDC, as it may be amended. Collier County reserves the right to modify or close any median opening existing at the time of approval of this PUD which is found to be adverse to the health, safety and welfare of of the public. Any such modifications shall be based on, but are not limited to, safety, operational circulation, and roadway capacity. 8. Nothing in any development order shall vest a right of access in excess of a right in/right out condition at any access point. Neither shall the existence of a point of ingress, a point of egress, a median opening, nor the lack thereof, be the basis for any future cause of action for damages against the County by the developer, its successor in title, or assignee. 9. All internal roads, driveway, alleys, pathways, sidewalks and interconnections to adjacent developments shall be operated and maintained by an entity created by the developer. Collier County shall have no responsibility for maintenance of any such facilities. 10. All construction traffic would be restricted to Commercial Drive or where Collier County requires construction entrance to be located. 11. If required by the Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) that will have to be submitted as part of the site development plan review process, Developer will build a right turn lane on Valewood Drive at the project entrance. If a turning lane is required, the Valewood Drive building setback of fifty (50)feet as noted in the development standards table shall be measured from the current ROW line and not from a future modified ROW line that may include a turning lane. e. UTILITIES The water distribution system and appurtenant facilities to serve the project are to be designed, constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained pursuant to the requirements of Collier County. -15- _•.A.-2005-AR-7152. PUD Document.9-30-05 The sewage collection, transmission and disposal facilities to serve the project are to be designed. constructed, conveyed, owned and maintained pursuant to the requirements of Collier County. f. SIGNAGE All County sign regulations shall apply unless such regulations are in conflict with the conditions set forth in this section. For the purpose of this PUD, each platted parcel shall be considered a separate parcel of land and shall be entitled to any sign as permitted herein. All signs shall be located so as not to cause sight distance problems. A maximum of four(4) project signs shall be permitted. Two (2) signs shall be located along Valewood Drive and two (2) at the intersection of Executive and Commercial Drives per LDC 5.06.04. 9: ENGINEERING Detailed paving, grading, and site drainage plans shall be submitted as part of the SDP application. No construction permits shall be issued unless and until approval of the proposed construction in accordance with the submitted plans is granted by CDES. Design and construction of all improvements shall be subject to compliance with appropriate provisions of the Collier County Ordinances regulating land development. h. LANDSCAPING Landscape architectural plans shall be submitted as part of the SDP filing. Up to one-half(1/2) or seven and one-half feet(7.5') of the fifteen foot (15') Collier County Drainage Easement that runs parallel to and twenty feet (20') west of the east property boundary may be used to satisfy the landscape buffer requirements of Section 4 of the LDC. A six (6')foot to eight (8') foot high wall or fence with a minimum (6) foot off-set from the property line and meeting the requirements of LDC Section 5.03.02.E of the LDC shall be installed along the residential-commercial boundary. Trees shall be planted 30 feet on-center on the commercial side of the wall or fence with a hedge on both sides of the wall planted at 30-inch heights and three (3')feet on- center. A six (6') foot high stucco wall with a hedge four(4')-foot tall on the roadside of the fence shall be installed along Valewood Drive. -16- PUDA-2005-AR-7152,PUD Document.9-30-05 • The Longshore Lake wall on the East Side of Valewood Village has a qap at Valewood Villages'far northeast corner. This qap shall be filled with a new wail, matching the existing Longshore Lake walls' height, building materials and color constructed by the Valewood Village developer. The landscape buffer along the east, north and west property lines shall contain trees with a minimum height of 12 feet or the tree height shall be one-half of the adjacent building height, which ever is greater. -17- --2005-AR-7152.PUD Document.9-30-05 SECTION IV GENERAL DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS 4.1 TRAFFIC IMPROVEMENTS a. The developer shall provide separate left and right turn storage lanes on Immokalee Road at the eastern entrance to the commercial area. b. The developer or his successor in title shall make a fair share contribution toward the capital cost of traffic signals at either or both access points to SR 846, when deemed warranted by the County Engineer. The signals will be owned, operated, and maintained by Collier County. c. Lakes shall have a minimum separation of 100 ft between top of bank and the nearest street right of way, or shall be separated from the nearest street by an approved physical barrier. i. Space shall be reserved to permit a future minor street connection between Valewood Drive and lands to the east, provided, however, that such street connection may not be the principal access point to lands to the east unless such principal access is authorized by the Quail Creek/Quail II development organization. 4.2 UTILITIES a. All on-site and off-site utility facilities constructed by the developer in connection with the development shall be constructed to County standards at no cost to the County and shall be deeded to the County Water-Sewer District in accordance with applicable County ordinances and regulations. b. All customer connections to the sanitary sewer and water distribution facilities will be customers of the County Water-Sewer District and will be billed in accordance with a County approved rate structure. -18- PUDA-2005-AR-7152,PUD Document,9-30-05 c. All construction plans and technical specifications for the proposed utility facilities must be reviewed and approved by the Utility Division prior to commencement of construction. d. As proposed, the rights-of-way within the project will be privately owned and maintained. Appropriate utility easements dedicated to the county Water-Sewer District must be provided for the proposed water and sewer facilities to be constructed. e. All construction on the proposed sanitary sewer system shall utilize proper methods and materials to insure watertight conditions. f. Data required under County Ordinance No. 80-112 must be submitted and approval granted prior to approval of the construction documents for the project. Submit a copy of the approved DER permit application for the sewage collection and transmission system and a copy of the approved DER permit application and operating permit for the wastewater treatment facility to be utilized, along with the data required for Ordinance No. 80-112. g. All construction plans and technical specifications for the plant relocation, transfer pump station, force main and pump design data must be reviewed and approved by the Utility Division prior to commencement of construction. h. Additional Conditions: 1. If required by applicable County Ordinance, connection to the County's Central Water and Sewer facilities will be made by the owners, their assigns or successors, at no cost to the County or the County Water-Sewer District, within 90 days after such facilities become available. 2, The owners, their assigns or successors shall pay all system development charges at the time that building permits or connections to the County's Central Water and Sewer facilities are requested, whichever is applicable, pursuant to the appropriate County Ordinances and Regulations in effect at the time of permit or connection request. Note: The above utilities related requirements are extracted from Utilities Manager, I. R. Berzon's memo of May 10, 1982 to Mary Lee Kirchoff, Planning Department. The requirements are intended to represent current County Utilities policy. In the event that County policy or ordinances regarding utilities are modified, the modified policy and/or ordinance requirements shall be applicable. In the event that a water and/or sewer franchise is granted to the Quail Creek Developers or their successors or assigns, requirements set forth in the franchise documents shall be controlling where they are at variance with the above listed policy requirements. -19- " DA-2005-AR-7152,PUD Document,9-30-05 4.3 WATER MANAGEMENT a. A detailed water management plan shall be submitted to the County Engineer for approval prior to the start of any construction. c. The Immokaleo mead canal shall bo improved along tho ontiro southerly b.g--Maintenance of the outflow canal shall be a continuing responsibility of the Quail Creek and/or Quail II organizational entities. 4.4 POLLING PLACES Pursuant to Section 2.6.30 of the Collier County Land Development Code, provision shall be made for the future use of building space within common areas for the purposes of accommodating the function of an electoral polling place. An agreement shall be recorded in the official records of the Clerk of the Circuit Court of Collier County, which shall be binding upon any and all successors in interest that acquire ownership of such common areas including homeowners' associations or tenants' associations. This agreement shall provide for said community recreation/public building/public room or similar common facility to be used for a polling place if determined to be necessary by the Supervisor of Elections. 4.5 PUD MONITORING An annual monitoring report shall be submitted pursuant to Subsection 2.7.3.6 of the Collier County Land Development Code. -20- PUDA-2005-AR-7152,PUD Document,9-30-05 ant)AaMNOOD ONY S314JM53)133k0 WOO j ! • E • z y• 7"---'-ji) W • Y Q' 0 t. j V 2 o 1:7, v F 2 f (1).A l7 \ V ° N i 3 z Z 1 O ie'r. K W Y / W K Q Z g ^ W N O LL/ cr i) 0¢ VI LL Q 3 1— 0 o x ' N z• in O z D u 5 . 0- In W 0 C ¢ • C z p J O o LL Li . > Q o ° D o V Q "1,..) V ' a J ^ v (:„,° `; o H > Z 1 w 0 Nz Q 0 i°�CC ,...Q in W O C G gW z ! W It , Q h .II cc m 5 �j L O c `m - I Vt-d.L, q C U -ar W 2 COMMERCIAL :_3 0- k o ° COMMERCIAL >a 3 _` --_ 100•CANAL RIGHT OF WAY {.� �� IMMOKALEEROAD Exhibit ,.A,. STATE OF FLORIDA) COUNTY OF COLLIER) I, DWIGHT E. BROCK, Clerk of Courts in and for the Twentieth Judicial Circuit, Collier County, Florida, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true copy of: ORDINANCE NO. 2005-52 Which was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on the 11th day of October 2005, during Regular Session. WITNESS my hand and the official seal of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County, Florida, this 18th day of October 2005 . DWIGHT E. BROCK Clerk of Courts and Clerk Ex-officio to Board of County Commissioners 1/ , n . Heidi Rockhold 1 Deputy Clerk , 1 1 2 TRANSCRIPT OF THE 3 NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING 4 FOR THE QUAIL II PUD 5 6 November 5, 2013 7 8 9 10 Appearances: 11 WAYNE ARNOLD 12 CHRIS ADAMS 13 MATT HERMANSON 14 NANCY GUNDLACH 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Transcribed by: 22 Joyce B. Howell Gregory Court Reporting Service, Inc. 23 2650 Airport Road South Suite A 24 Naples, FL 34112 239.774.4414 25 Attachment C 2 1 UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE VOICE: Okay. Go. 2 MR. ARNOLD: Are we ready? All right. 3 We're here for the neighborhood information 4 meeting for the Quail II PUD. 5 I'm Wayne Arnold. I'm from GradyMinor & 6 Associates. We do the professional surveying, 7 engineering and planning for the property. 8 Also tonight we have Matt Hermanson (phonetic) 9 and Chris Adams, both from Toll Brothers, who are 10 under contract for the property that we're talking 11 about. 12 Nancy Gundlach is right here. Nancy's a 13 principal planner with Collier County, and she's 14 the staff project manager for the project. 15 And here recording is Sharon Umpenhour 16 (phonetic) with Q. GradyMinor & Associates, and you 17 all received the informational letter from her, and 18 she's going to be taking some good notes for us 19 tonight. 20 The property that we're dealing with, I think 21 most of you all are probably familiar with it, got 22 the aerial, and it's the vacant parcel that's 23 walled off that's along Valewood Drive, and it's 24 about 21 and a half acres. And right now it's 25 approved in the PUD for 152 multi-family units. 3 1 There was a proposal some time ago to convert 2 that to an assisted living facility. That was 3 scratched and the current POD allows the 152 units. 4 What we're asking for as part of our amendment 5 is to have an "or" situation. In lieu of the 152 6 units, we would be proposing to have up to 87 7 single family dwelling units. And we built in a 8 variety of single family detached, attached or 9 maybe zero lot line, probably leaning toward 10 typical detached dwellings, but we're establishing 11 on this tract called the R1 tract to distinguish it 12 for everything else that's already been developed. 13 So we're modifying the POD specific to that 14 tract of land. So we've got our own development 15 standards table. We've made provisions for our own 16 internal rights of way sizes, sidewalks, things of 17 that nature, that would be possibly the same, but 18 definitely so this amendment, just so everybody 19 knows, it only applies to the subject property that 20 we're dealing with. 21 Just to put it in context, that's on an 22 aerial. That's a little bit tighter aerial to show 23 that it's the site I'm sure most of you are aware 24 of, and it's the intent of the developer to move 25 forward with this quickly. 4 1 The project had been in process at the county, 2 got put on hold after the Planning Commission 3 hearing that dealt with the senior housing. So 4 we're back in sort of midstream, and the county has 5 seen one review of our proposed documents for the 6 87 single family as the option. 7 And they're minor comments. We're holding off 8 resubmitting until after tonight's meeting. We 9 thought getting the benefit of any input you all 10 may have that would allow us to tweak our plans or 11 project based on what we heard tonight. 12 The 87 units is largely a tradeoff in terms of 13 the same traffic for the 152 multi-family units. 14 That also happens to be about the maximum number of 15 those types of units that Toll Brothers can fit on 16 that site. So that's why we're dealing with such 17 an odd but specific number of dwelling units. 18 And just so -- the master plan, in keeping 19 with what was already previously shown for the 20 multi-family, we've simply added a few notations on 21 here. We've relabeled it consistent with how the 22 county now asked us to label the documents. 23 We're asking to allow the wall to remain. I 24 think there's been some conversations with 25 Longshore, but there's the existing wall along 5 1 Longshore Lake that we would like to go ahead and 2 keep, and we would make provisions for either a 3 15-foot landscape buffer that's approved today for 4 a multi-family, or reduce that to ten feet if we, 5 in fact, move forward with a single family product. 6 A VOICE: We can't hear you. Will you say 7 that again? 8 A VOICE: Speak up. 9 A VOICE: Would you say that again, please? 10 MR. ARNOLD: I said that we -- 11 A VOICE: We can't hear you back here on this 12 side either. 13 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 14 A VOICE: You're going that way. 15 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. The project has an 16 existing wall. I'm proposing to keep the existing 17 wall in place. With the multi-family option, the 18 PUD requires a 15-foot wide landscape buffer. The 19 wall's not required by code, but it's already 20 there. But as the single family option, we would 21 have a ten-foot wide landscape buffer on our side 22 of that wall. So hopefully everybody heard that. 23 A VOICE: That's on the inside of the wall? 24 MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. Yes. 25 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) . Want to try it? 6 1 A VOICE: Does it work? 2 A VOICE: I've got to turn it on. 3 MR. ARNOLD: Folks, if we could -- I know we 4 have a lot of people in the room. We don't have a 5 microphone that may be available. So if we could 6 all try to limit our side conversations so we can 7 get through it. There's a lot of people. I'm 8 presuming that there's a lot of questions. 9 I think what we're asking for is a fairly 10 straightforward request to have the option of 87 11 single family type residences or to go to the 152 12 multi-family that's currently in the PUD. 13 A VOICE: We can't hear you back here. 14 MR. ARNOLD: Sir, I'm trying to speak up, 15 okay? Be patient, please. We have it working. 16 Okay. Everybody hear that? 17 I think we're going to have the same issue 18 when we go to questions, so maybe if we could, if 19 it's not too much of an inconvenience, you can 20 speak up so we get it not only on the recorder, but 21 everybody else can have the benefit of hearing what 22 your question is so we can then give you the best 23 answer that we possibly can. 24 I really don't have a lot more detail to add, 25 and we're going to be having probably some separate 7 1 meetings with different homeowner association 2 boards as we move through this' process. 3 Nancy, I don't think we have Planning 4 Commission hearing dates yet. 5 MS. GUNLACH: Probably early next year. 6 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Early -- January 2014 7 would be the earliest that we're probably going to 8 have our public hearing. 9 Right now, just so you will all understand the 10 process, this neighborhood information meeting that 11 we're conducting tonight is a required public 12 hearing or public meeting for the project, for us 13 to share with you what we're intending to do. 14 You'll -- if you received notice of this 15 meeting, you'll receive notice of the upcoming 16 Planning Commission hearing that likely is going to 17 happen around the early part of 2014. There will 18 also be the large four-by-eight sign that gets 19 posted on the property when we'll be announcing 20 both the Planning Commission and the Board of 21 County Commissioner hearings for that property. 22 A VOICE: I have a question. 23 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. I'll turn it over to some 24 questions and start and then we'll move -- right 25 here, okay. 8 1 A VOICE: This is my third or fourth meeting 2 on this subject. 3 Can you tell me what your -- Toll Brothers 4 owned it originally. What was the plan -- I've 5 seen the FEMA map of that area. There is a FEMA 6 map. There are streets named on the FEMA map that 7 are already there -- they're not there, but they're 8 on this map. 9 So what did Toll Brothers intend originally? 10 I mean, this keeps going through different 11 permutations. I'm wondering where it started -- 12 MR. ARNOLD: Did everybody hear the question? 13 A VOICE: No. 14 MR. ARNOLD: The question was really the 15 different permutations of site plan that's 16 occurred. Toll Brothers originally owned it, 17 didn't move forward with the property. Now they're 18 looking at it again. 19 And just from the history of the project, this 20 was originally converted from commercial zoning for 21 the 152 multi-family residences that are currently 22 in the PUD. So this formerly was a commercial 23 tract in your PUD that Toll Brothers, I believe, at 24 the time, was the applicant to move through the 25 process and look at this for multi-family. 9 1 Market conditions have changed since that many 2 years ago. A strong market for single family. I 3 think that's where Toll sees this project going, 4 but, obviously, they already have the entitlement 5 for 152 multi-family that we're keeping in the PUD 6 and it's a development option. Okay. 7 This gentleman right back here. Yes, sir? 8 A VOICE: I'm just not clear. Is it Toll 9 Brothers is the builder? 10 MR. ARNOLD: Right now Toll Brothers is under 11 contract, and a slightly different entity name than 12 Toll Brothers, but it's one of their entities that 13 is under contract. 14 A VOICE: They're the owners of the property? 15 MR. ARNOLD: They're not the owners of the 16 property. They are in contract to purchase the 17 property. 18 A VOICE: Oh, they are, though? 19 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 20 A VOICE: Okay. And the other question I 21 have. I'm a little confused about the single and 22 the multi-family. I don't know what that -- 23 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. 24 A VOICE: Give me (indiscernible) . What are 25 you talking about, condos or what? 10 1 MR. ARNOLD: Well, the multi-family in Collier 2 County is any three or more units that are attached 3 together are considered a multi-family dwelling. 4 So that could take the form of townhomes or typical 5 condos that you might think of would be a 6 multi-family type unit. 7 Single family, on the other hand, is what you 8 have largely and you think of as single family, 9 either detached, and there's some various forms of 10 detached, single family housing that would be more 11 of an attached villa, some people call it. We made 12 provisions for some zero lot line product as well. 13 A VOICE: Is it the builder's wishes to go 14 with single family? Does he have a preference? 15 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think right now, they 16 want to keep their options open. I think leaning 17 towards single family, which is why we're back in 18 asking for that option. 19 A VOICE: Thank you. 20 MR. ARNOLD: Yes? 21 A VOICE: My question is to the Toll Brothers. 22 Can't you make up your mind what you want to do? I 23 mean, who does business by saying, hey, look, give 24 us approval for this or that and we'll let you know 25 later. 11 1 MR. ARNOLD: I would say almost 99 percent of 2 the projects I represent do, sir. That's very 3 typical that we ask for a variety of product type 4 because market conditions change and what we try to 5 do, then, is develop development standards and 6 regulations to make sure that no matter which 7 product type you get, you're protected from any 8 incompatible issues, buffers, et cetera. 9 Yes, ma'am. 10 A VOICE: Do they perceive this as an open 11 community or a gated community? 12 MR. ARNOLD: I believe the intent is to gate 13 it. 14 Yes, sir? 15 A VOICE: The way I understand it, so correct 16 me if I'm wrong, today they could go ahead and 17 build 152 multi-family units. 18 MR. ARNOLD: Correct. 19 A VOICE: What they're asking for is an option 20 to make it what I would think would be better, 21 which would be 89, is it? 22 MR. ARNOLD: 87. 23 A VOICE: 87? 24 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. 25 A VOICE: Single family units? 12 1 MR. ARNOLD: Correct. 2 A VOICE: So they could build the multi-family 3 units right now without any meetings and without 4 any approvals. We don't have anything to say about 5 that, because that's the way it's already zoned, 6 right? 7 MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. 8 A VOICE: That's correct. 9 A VOICE: What they're proposing is an option 10 that I would think we would all consider to be 11 better. 12 A VOICE: Correct. 13 MR. ARNOLD: And this is truly an option. 14 It's either they're going to build single family or 15 there could be multi-family. It's not a blend. 16 They're not asking for up to 152 blended. It's 17 either 87 single family type product or it's going 18 to be 152. 19 A VOICE: One or the other. 20 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 21 A VOICE: You're not mixing -- 22 MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. 23 A VOICE: When do you think this would be -- 24 MR. ARNOLD: Can we get somebody else, sir, 25 that hasn't asked a question and come back to you? 13 1 A VOICE: Is there a height restriction on 2 this property? 3 MR. ARNOLD: There is. Right now, the 4 multi-family is set up for two story maximum, and I 5 believe it's 30 feet zone height, and 40 feet 6 actual height, something like that. 7 A VOICE: The two story before, it was two 8 story plus parking underneath. Is it still two 9 story with parking underneath? 10 MR. ARNOLD: We only specify two stories. 11 A VOICE: No parking underneath. My question, 12 we live on the wall on (indiscernible) . If you 13 build along (indiscernible) how close to the wall 14 would it be and how high would it be, because we're 15 concerned about our -- the back of our house being 16 (indiscernible) by (indiscernible) . 17 MR. ARNOLD: Right. And that's one thing, the 18 county, when they went through this process before, 19 established some setbacks from Longshore Lake and 20 Valewood for multi-family products, and part of our 21 revision for the single family would reduce that 22 number, still specifying that -- but I think the 23 issue of, you know, having single family that's a 24 little bit closer to the street is less imposing 25 than having a large multi-family building. So we 14 1 hope that's a reduction in the right direction. 2 Let's see. Ma'am, all the way in the back. 3 A VOICE: You mentioned that you wanted to 4 change from 15 to 10 feet of shrubs between. I 5 don't think you've given us all the specifics of 6 the changes that you want. For example, the 7 setbacks, the height of the plantings and so forth. 8 Is there any way you could give us 9 specifically, other than single family option, what 10 other changes are you asking for? 11 MR. ARNOLD: Well, we're establishing 12 development standards, for instance, building 13 setbacks for our single family product because the 14 PUD, right now, doesn't permit single family on the 15 tract. So we have to establish front yard, side 16 yard, rear yard setbacks, for instance, for our 17 product, which we have, which are very consistent 18 with other single family product we have used for 19 Toll Brothers or any number of other homebuilders 20 in the area. 21 A VOICE: I'm talking about setbacks to our 22 west wall. 23 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. We have -- the setback, 24 for instance, right now, as it's written for the 25 single family, from the east boundary of Longshore 15 1 Lake, it's 20 feet for the single family home. The 2 commercial boundary, it's 15. The west boundary, 3 along Valewood, is 20. 4 A VOICE: I believe you had a 50-foot setback 5 in the original -- 6 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma'am, you did, for the 7 multi-family buildings, yes, and that was -- 8 A VOICE: So you're asking for 20 instead of 9 50? 10 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. That's pretty standard for 11 single family product, to ask for a 20-foot rear 12 yard setback. 13 A VOICE: Are these two story or one story? 14 MR. ARNOLD: I think it's probably going to be 15 a combination. I don't think they know in advance, 16 you know, who's going to pick a single family 17 versus two -- two-story option, but I think there's 18 provisions here for having two-story single family 19 homes. 20 A VOICE: Well, if you had a two-story single 21 family or a two-story condo, wouldn't you want the 22 same setback? 23 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think the distinction is, 24 on a multi-family condo, for instance, I could have 25 a 24-unit building, I could have a 50-unit 16 1 building, I could have, you know, one building with 2 150 units in it, theoretically. The scale of those 3 buildings, you know, you've got space in between 4 each home. You've got a rear yard. It's just a 5 different massing than you would find for a 6 multi-family product. 7 A VOICE: It would still have the same height 8 (indiscernible) the same. 9 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think possibly, but 10 probably not. I mean, I guess you could build a 11 really tall two-story home, but I think, you know, 12 most cases, typical 'single family product around 13 here is 25 to 30 feet, maximum. 14 A VOICE: When would you be able to tell us 15 the specific changes other than single family? 16 MR. ARNOLD: If you would like to -- if have 17 an e-mail address or you have an address where we 18 could mail something, I can send you the complete 19 materials that we've submitted to the county so you 20 can see exactly what we've asked for. If you let 21 Sharon know before you leave or if your e-mail 22 address is on the sign-in sheet, we'll make sure 23 everybody who wants something can get it. 24 A VOICE: Why wouldn't you have those 25 available tonight? 17 1 MR. ARNOLD: I had no idea how many people 2 might be here, so (indiscernible) . 3 A VOICE: That's not a good answer. I mean, 4 this is supposed to be an informational night. You 5 brought the same things that we've seen for years, 6 okay. When we ask you for information, you ask for 7 e-mail addresses. Why didn't you come prepared 8 this evening with what we needed to see about this 9 project? 10 MR. ARNOLD: I have no idea what anybody wants 11 to see. 12 A VOICE: No, you're dancing now. 13 MR. ARNOLD: No, I'm not. We do this a lot, 14 sir. 15 A VOICE: Don't tell me what you do a lot. 16 Just -- we're here. There's a lot of people. 17 We've been -- this was our fourth or fifth 18 iteration, okay? The lady is asking you for 19 specific information, okay, and you're saying give 20 me an e-mail address. You should have come 21 prepared. 22 We will go to the county (indiscernible) . 23 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. We'll move along. Thank 24 you. 25 Yes, sir. 18 1 A VOICE: At what point will Toll Brothers 2 commit to single family versus multi-family and 3 will there be an opportunity for community 4 interaction after that commitment? 5 MR. ARNOLD: Maybe I can let Matt or Chris 6 answer the question. I'm really not privy to all 7 their contracts and specifics when they have to 8 make certain business decisions. 9 MR. ADAMS: Hi. I'm Chris Adams. I'm 10 responsible for this community. 11 Basically, we won't commit. If it doesn't 12 turn to single family, we won't commit, you know, ]3 on there. We're under contract with it, with a 14 provision that it's got to turn to single family. 15 So that's kind of how we're looking at it. 16 It's zoned right now for multi-family as you 17 all know. We want to convert it to single family 18 so we can build possibly single family product. I 19 can't give you information right now because we're 20 -- we're not going to invest the hours and the time 21 into it until we're sure that it's going to 22 possibly convert over to single family, you know. 23 So that's kind of what I can say with that. 24 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 25 MR. ADAMS: Okay. 19 1 A VOICE: Do you think it will be 2 multi-generational or seniors only or what? 3 MR. ADAMS: We hope to target the market 4 that's around here right now, you know, where it's 5 not going to be, you know, age restricted or 6 anything like that. It will be gated. But our 7 target market is -- could be family, second-home 8 buyers. It's Toll Brothers. I mean, we're not a 9 first-home builder. We build the second, you know, 10 buyers, third buyers. We build luxury homes. 11 That's what we do and that's what we're great it. 12 And we want to do it in this area, because 13 this is a great area, as you all know. 14 MR. ARNOLD: All the way in the back. 15 A VOICE: Tell me approximately what price 16 range you would be targeting with this project. 17 MR. ARNOLD: It's still preliminary, but maybe 18 around 400. 19 A VOICE: Super. 20 A VOICE: When will it be -- 21 MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry? 22 A VOICE: When do you think the time frame is? 23 MR. ARNOLD: It all depends on this right 24 here. I mean, the time frame can be anywhere -- it 25 could be from a year to two years, six months. 20 1 Depends on how long it takes to get the single 2 family component into (indiscernible) . 3 If I might just add on that, a lot of this 4 involves the public hearing schedule. As Nancy 5 mentioned, the Planning Commission looks like it's 6 going to be sometime around the first of the year. 7 That usually puts the board meeting six weeks 8 after. 9 So we'll know, by spring, whether or not this 10 is viewed favorably by the County Commission. 11 Assuming it is, I think Toll Brothers would like to 12 move rather quickly. The market is really strong 13 and I think they want to take advantage of that, 14 and so I don't think he intends to sit on this and 15 wait. I think, you know, once this is approved, 16 they'll be ready to move. 17 The gentleman right here in the back? 18 A VOICE: Yes. The entrance and egress is 19 coming out on Valewood; is that correct? 20 MR. ARNOLD: Correct. 21 A VOICE: Okay. That's right near the curve 22 in the road. I don't think that that's a great 23 place to have it with traffic coming around that 24 curve. I mean, you have people going way over the 25 35 mile-an-hour speed limit. I just want to bring 21 1 this up as a -- as a point, and I know you have 2 another entrance by the Mobil station, which is 3 used for construction, and maybe that should be 4 where the entrance and egress should be. 5 MR. ARNOLD: We're required to have two 6 entrances. 7 A VOICE: Okay. 8 MR. ARNOLD: So we'd have to have cne at 9 Valewood. 10 A VOICE: So which one is going to be the two 11 entrances? What's going to be the main entrance? 12 MR. ARNOLD: (Indiscernible) the main entrance 13 would be off Valewood and the secondary entrance 14 would be by the Mobil station. 15 A VOICE: You might want to look at that. 16 That's not a great area. 17 MR. ARNOLD: We will. We have to do a lot of 18 coordination with Collier County transportation as 19 we move through. In this case, the single family 20 would go through the preliminary plat, and then the 21 final plat process, and the county looks at 22 transportation very closely. 23 Janet? 24 A VOICE: What size is it (indiscernible) 25 contemplate, looking at square feet? 22 1 MR. ARNOLD: What size homes? Currently -- 2 A VOICE: What size -- 3 MR. ARNOLD: The question was, what size homes 4 are we contemplating. And right now, for instance, 5 the multi-family that's permitted is 1,500 square 6 foot minimum. The single family that we're asking 7 for is 1,500 square feet for the attached single 8 family or zero lot line and 1,775 square feet for 9 conventional single family detached. 10 A VOICE: What was that last number? 11 MR. ARNOLD: 1,775. 1,775 square feet. 12 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) ? 13 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 14 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 15 MR. ARNOLD: Let's see. Janet, you had your 16 hand up here. 17 A VOICE: Yeah. Thank you. I have just two 18 issues I wanted to bring up. 19 We've just gotten your information within the 20 last day or so. But one of the areas that we find 21 problematic in Longshore, and we're just beginning 22 to look at it, is the east boundary minimum 23 setbacks. As you mentioned, it is 50 right now for 24 the multi-family. But now, under the various 25 single family, it goes down to either 20 for the 23 1 detached, 30 for the zero lot line or zero for the 2 two family and duplex. 3 And we find that to be problematic. I'm 4 pretty sure that's going to be an issue for our 5 residents that are right behind that wall. 6 And right now, we are entitled to 50. So, in 7 order for you to get this changed to be smaller, 8 you'd have to get, you know, the Board of County 9 Commissioners to approve that. 10 And also, on the Valewood Road issue, we've 11 looked at this before with the CCRC, the continuing 12 care retirement community, which was the last 13 iteration, and on that one, we asked for a right 14 turn deceleration lane into that property, because 15 it looks like your gate will be very close to 16 Valewood and maybe only two or three cars can 17 stack. So that means that if anybody's coming in, 18 in volume, you'll be in the middle of Valewood 19 backing it up. 20 So that was one of the things we'd really like 21 you to consider, too, is a deceleration right turn 22 lane. 23 MR. ARNOLD: We'll certainly look into that, 24 Janet. 25 A VOICE: And we'll be wanting to meet along 24 1 with Longshore to go over some of these issues in 2 detail before you go forward (indiscernible) . 3 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. Thank you. 4 Yes, sir. 5 A VOICE: Aren't you going to need a variance 6 because of the lack of compatibility of the 7 abutting PUD? All these PUDs around have a much 8 lower units per acre than your proposal in your 9 (indiscernible) when you put in the multi-family. 10 You're going to need a variance to deal with the 11 compatibility problem within the development and in 12 the law that deals with abutting PUDs. 13 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think the county has 14 already determined us to be compatible with the PUD 15 that allows the 152 multi-family units. That's 16 what we're entitled to today. 17 A VOICE: You're an R1 now, right? 18 MR. ARNOLD: We are proposing to designate 19 this tract R1 to distinguish it from the rest of 20 your PUD so we don't get into modifying standards 21 that apply to your home, for instance, or somebody 22 else's. It only applies to this property. 23 A VOICE: But the law provides for an R4, an 24 R5 and R6. It seems to be you're going to have to 25 deal with multi-family compatibility issues in the 25 1 surrounding PUDs. 2 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that was -- I think 3 that was -- that was already done when they 4 converted the commercial tract, which this was 5 allowed to have commercial on it. They converted 6 the commercial to allow multi-family which is 7 allowed today. And we're asking for the option to 8 not build 152 multi-family, but to build 87 single 9 family homes. 10 A VOICE: So you're going to (indiscernible) 11 that -- 12 MR. ARNOLD: That's correct. 13 A VOICE: -- to the single family? 14 MR. ARNOLD: That's our option, yes, sir. 15 A VOICE: Your option? 16 MR. ARNOLD: Well, we're asking for that as an 17 option. We could develop 152 multi-family that 18 we're approved for today or up to 87 single family 19 residential dwellings. 20 A VOICE: That's my concern when you talk 21 about multi-family, because I think you've got a 22 compatibility problem with the land development 23 code. 24 MR. ARNOLD: Well, just to give you an answer, 25 this is a separate PUD, so standards get applied to 26 1 the PUD. For instance, for multi-family, as 2 Ms. Vasey indicated, they have a 50-foot setback 3 from the property line for a multi-family building. 4 We're asking to make that standard smaller for 5 single family homes, because we think that it is 6 more compatible, and, therefore, we should have a 7 setback that's more comparable to a typical single 8 family product. 9 (Indiscernible) ma'am? 10 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) but how, if this 11 wasn't here, what (indiscernible) different from 12 the last time Toll Brothers was proposing? 13 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I wasn't involved in the 14 original project, but Toll Brothers, when they were 15 previously looking at this, they were looking at 16 this as a multi-family community. Now the idea is 17 to make this an option to also have the option to 18 do the single family product. The market has just 19 shifted in the last five years dramatically, and I 20 think right now the market certainly is trending 21 toward single family. 22 A VOICE: What (indiscernible) last question, 23 (indiscernible) and you mentioned the FEMA map. 24 Does that mean that you've got flood plain right on 25 that property? 27 1 MR. ARNOLD: This gentleman actually mentioned 2 the FEMA maps, and FEMA, which is a federal 3 program, has remapped all of Collier and Lee County 4 and southwest Florida. So, you know, we've got to 5 deal with that. We have to establish our drainage 6 based on FEMA elevations and set our finished 7 floors, et cetera. Nothing crazy here. And it's 8 largely unchanged for this parcel. 9 Yes, sir. 10 A VOICE: You mentioned reduced setbacks based 11 on single family homes. If you get this zoned as 12 you want it, I just want to clarify that if you 13 then decide to build multi-family units, the 14 reduced setbacks go away; is that correct? 15 MR. ARNOLD: Correct. We left the standards 16 in place for the multi-family, just as they're 17 approved today. 18 Yes, ma'am. 19 A VOICE: You said you're going to also 20 conduct, in addition to this, meetings with each of 21 the various homeowners; is that correct? 22 MR. ARNOLD: We don't know -- Toll Brothers 23 already reached out and had a meeting fairly 24 recently with representatives of, I know, Longshore 25 and probably Quail Creek, and I don't know who 28 1 else. I wasn't party to that meeting, but I think 2 with any community, they're going to be community 3 partners, and it's their style to reach out to its 4 neighbors. 5 A VOICE: I'm just wondering if you will be 6 bringing along paperwork next time. 7 MR. ARNOLD: What kind of paperwork 8 (indiscernible) ? 9 A VOICE: Well, for instance, especially the 10 homeowners here who are impacted by the variance 11 change, just some sort of a catchall of what this 12 change is, it's not just a reduction or just 87 13 homes. 14 This is what that means for those of us who 15 are not in this business. We have no clue what the 16 setbacks are, what you're allowed, what you're 17 asking for under this new proposal, and that's why 18 I think some people here were very upset, because 19 we have no knowledge of any of that stuff, and, 20 yet, you're asking, you know, you could have done 21 the same thing in a letter, quite frankly. 22 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think that's been part 23 of, you know, an ongoing issue with the way that 24 these neighborhood meetings get conducted, because 25 you end up in various stages, where you have a 29 1 contract purchaser who isn't going to go forward 2 and have all the expensive engineering documents 3 prepared necessarily because we don't know if the 4 Board of County Commissioners, in six months, will 5 approve this. 6 So, I mean, they're working on some conceptual 7 plans now, and I'm sure that they will be happy to 8 share those with the (indiscernible) . 9 A VOICE: No, I mean just in general. I'm 10 talking about general range (indiscernible) . 11 That's all. 12 MR. ARNOLD: Well, like I said, you know, if 13 you'd be kind enough to give us an e-mail address 14 or some way we can contact you, I'll send out 15 everything we've submitted to the county and be 16 happy to answer any questions you would have about 17 all those details. 18 A VOICE: Is (indiscernible) online? 19 MR. ARNOLD: Nancy -- I don't think you can go 20 on line and view the documents we've submitted. I 21 know that's something the county is moving toward, 22 electronic filing, where you can view a lot of 23 these documents. It's not quite there yet. 24 Nancy, do you want to -- 25 MS. GUNLACH: Yeah. We're not quite there in 30 1 terms of having the documents available publicly, 2 but I did leave my cards at the entrance, if you 3 want to grab my card. 4 The best thing to do, if you want to know 5 what's being presented to the county, is just to 6 ask me. I'll have the latest and greatest 7 documents. So I'm happy to serve you in that way, 8 okay? So please feel free to contact me. 9 MR. ARNOLD: Thank you, Nancy. 10 This gentleman right back here. 11 A VOICE: I have two questions. 12 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, sir. 13 A VOICE: On your map, in the northeast 14 corner, you show an amenity earlier. 15 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 16 A VOICE: Noise (indiscernible) would be a 17 problem. So we'd like to know what you plan to put 18 there. 19 And, secondly, do you still plan to put a 20 wall, six-foot wall, along Longshore western 21 border, your eastern border? 22 MR. ARNOLD: There's a wall existing that will 23 remain, I believe, along that whole eastern 24 Longshore Lake buffer. I don't think it's our 25 intent to build a wall to the wall. I think we're 31 1 hoping to utilize the existing wall. 2 A VOICE: And maintain it (indiscernible) . 3 MR. ARNOLD: Right. 4 A VOICE: We do plan on doing a heavy 5 landscape buffer (indiscernible) pretty much. 6 MR. ARNOLD: And the amenity area, I don't 7 know, Chris, if you all have given thought. It's 8 about an acre site. It's not going to be a large 9 amenity (indiscernible) . There will be an 10 opportunity for the community to have some small 11 recreation area. 12 A VOICE: Correct. 13 MR. ARNOLD: Let's see. Yes, ma'am. 14 A VOICE: My question was, is if I heard this 15 correctly. What you're looking for tonight is the 16 option to build a single family home, and then did 17 you say that if you did not get this, you're not 18 interested in developing this property, or did I 19 get that wrong? 20 A VOICE: We are -- 21 A VOICE: You're interested in developing 22 single family (indiscernible) . 23 A VOICE: Our interest in this property is to 24 convert it to single family. 25 P, VOICE: Okay. 32 1 A VOICE: Our conceptual designs are all based 2 off single family right now. 3 A VOICE: Okay. That's what I -- 4 A VOICE: Multi-family originally was proposed 5 by Toll Brothers, as you know, but the market 6 conditions right now, they're not -- not 7 multi-family driven right now. 8 So we are -- you know, our market conditions 9 show that single family is the way to go. So we' re 10 taking an existing PUD that we used to own, that we 11 sold (indiscernible) market conditions dropped, we 12 bought it back and now we want to convert it to 13 single family so we can do single family. 14 A VOICE: All right. That's what I thought 15 you had kind of -- 16 A VOICE: Yes, sir. (Indiscernible) . 17 A VOICE: A few questions. You said it's not 18 Toll Brothers, but it's a division of Toll 19 Brothers. 20 A VOICE: That's (indiscernible) . 21 A VOICE: Toll Brothers (indiscernible) under 22 different names. It's Toll Brothers. It's Toll 23 Brothers. 24 A VOICE: Okay. 25 A VOICE: But as far as the entity name, you 33 1 know, as you know, major companies and 2 homebuilders, there's a lot of different entities 3 that it's under. 4 A VOICE: Is there a similar property in 5 Naples? 6 A VOICE: Yes, actually, if you don't mind. 7 If you're all interested in seeing Toll 8 Brothers product, this community will be very 9 similar to Firano Naples. I don't know if you're 10 all familiar. It's Firano down in -- off Davis 11 Boulevard. 12 A VOICE: It's the old (indiscernible) . 13 A VOICE: Yeah, the drive-in, is what it used 14 to be. (Indiscernible) purchase. It's going to be 15 very similar to that. I mean, almost to the T, you 16 know, a Firano, in terms of -- we're going to 17 update the elevations. Those elevations are a 18 little bit old. 19 As you know, we like to keep it to a theme, 20 kind of like a -- I don't want to (indiscernible) 21 too much on here, but like a small castle, you 22 know, kind of a majestic theme, you know, on there. 23 It's Toll Brothers. We like to do it up nice. 24 We're investing quite a bit in landscaping for the 25 community to make it look real beautiful. 34 1 But for its product, Firano, Bonita Lakes, you 2 know, the executive series of Bonita Lakes, is 3 another community to see our product, but it's 4 going to be very close to those kind of 5 communities, the idea of what we're proposing to do 6 there. 7 A VOICE: One more comment. 8 MR. ARNOLD: Yes, ma'am. 9 A VOICE: You mentioned you would e-mail 10 different people the changes if they supply their 11 e-mail. 12 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. 13 A VOICE: Can you e-mail those changes to 14 someone in Longshore so they can distribute it so 15 (indiscernible) . 16 MR. ARNOLD: Oh, absolutely, sure. If 17 somebody from Longshore who is here would like to 18 be the recipient of -- 19 A VOICE: I have a gentleman's business card. 20 He can contact all the different -- 21 MR. ARNOLD: Does that work, sir? You give 22 Sharon in our office your information, so we can 23 e-mail you the various changes? 24 A VOICE: Yes. 25 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. We'll be resubmitting our 35 1 documents very soon, so you'll be getting an e-mail 2 from us with the updated (indiscernible) documents. 3 Who had -- yes, ma'am. 4 A VOICE: What was the name of the development 5 on Davis? 6 MR. ARNOLD: Firano. 7 Yes, sir. 8 A VOICE: What is our -- what is our role in 9 this here this evening? Can we vote this down or 10 vote it up or what type of power (indiscernible) 11 have (indiscernible) . 12 A VOICE: We didn't come prepared to vote. 13 A VOICE: And -- well, that's a good point. 14 We're saying we're -- you know, you're asking us to 15 buy something that (indiscernible) . 16 MR. ARNOLD: Well, we're not asking -- we're 17 not asking for you to endorse us tonight. We're 18 not asking you to oppose us tonight. This truly is 19 informational, let you know that something is 20 happening here in these communities, and these 21 plans are going to be evolving. There 22 (indiscernible) changes all he way up to the 23 planning department and the Planning Commission 24 members have many of the same questions you may 25 have, and hopefully in four months we have more 36 1 answers than we have today, because we've had the 2 benefit of hearing what you're telling us, and then 3 staff is conducting their review, and we're going 4 to be talking with the transportation staff, and it 5 just goes on and on. So this is kind of an 6 (indiscernible) as it normally is. 7 But, no, we're not asking for you to love us 8 or hate us tonight, but if you love us, that's 9 great. And if you hate us, tell us why, and we'll 10 try to, you know, make you like us. 11 A VOICE: Well, it sounds like the 82 homes 12 that someone else -- 13 A VOICE: It's 87. 14 A VOICE: 87, are preferable to us. Why 15 wouldn't the county want this? 16 MR. ARNOLD: Well, I think, from the county's 17 perspective, they look at a whole lot of different 18 things than you, as neighbors, look at. And a lot 19 of what they do is process driven, and we're in 20 that process right now. 21 We're going to be moving through the hearing 22 process. Staff is going to be issuing a staff 23 report in the next, you know, 30, 45 days, or 24 something like that, and we'll get a flavor of 25 where they are. 37 1 MS. GUNLACH: (Indiscernible) . 2 MR. ARNOLD: What's that? 3 A VOICE: I just got to correct you. It's not 4 going to be that soon. 5 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. It won't be that soon. 6 Call it around the first of the year. 7 MS. GUNLACH: I don't want to mislead people. 8 MR. ARNOLD: Okay. But we are in the process, 9 and like I said, it's -- you know, this is -- I 10 know this gentleman doesn't believe me, but we do 11 this a lot. There are a lot of communities we ask 12 for. We ask for a wide variety of uses, and the 13 way that we tell you we're going to be compatible 14 is, if we have a large building, we're going to 15 have a larger setback, bigger buffer, et cetera. 16 If I got single family to single family, I think, 17 traditionally, that number has been less, the 18 separation between them, but they're for like uses. 19 So, generally, it's not seen as being an 20 incompatible relationship there. So, I mean, we're 21 going through that process, and we're not changing, 22 you know, we're not trying to change and retrade 23 the deal. You're either going to get the 152 units 24 as they were envisioned or you're going to get 87 25 very nice Toll Brothers homes. That's about as 38 1 simple as I can make it. 2 Yes, sir. 3 A VOICE: The eastern wall of this project is 4 a (indiscernible) cinder block and chain link. 5 Do you plan to do anything to make it look 6 better than that? Landscape it or -- 7 MR. ARNOLD: Well, the wall is kind of owned 8 by other property. It's owned by, I believe, 9 Longshore, you know, but as far as marketing the 10 community (indiscernible) of course, you know, we 11 plan on cleaning it up. We'll definitely paint our 12 side, you know, and we do plan on doing a very nice 13 landscape buffer. 14 You know, that's part of the reason for these 15 setbacks, to adjust (indiscernible) so we can 16 pursue that, but you can't build another wall up 17 next to it unless you can maintain in between the 18 properties (indiscernible) propose real heavy 19 landscaping. 20 We're not sure yet. We're still in the 21 preliminary stages, but we just know we're going to 22 landscape it with a nice buffer across there. 23 That's pretty much all I can say right now. No 24 (indiscernible) information (indiscernible) . 25 Janet (indiscernible) . I'm sorry. I didn't 39 1 see you. 2 A VOICE: One of the reasons that you have the 3 50-fcot buffer right now for the multi-family was 4 because it would be a massive building, you know, 5 40 feet high, and that would be hard for some of 6 our single family homes to look at. 7 But when I look at your side yards, for the 8 single family, for the zero -- well, for the single 9 family, they're only five feet apart on the side 10 yards. The zero lot line is zero. And the 11 two-family duplex is five feet. So you're going to 12 have a mass of 40-foot buildings with, you know, 13 little breaks in it under this thing, so I would 14 think you've got to have some more of a setback, 15 because it's going to have the same effect as a big 16 multi-family. 17 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, I think the distinction, 18 Janet, is that these are spaces between them. 19 They're probably very comparable to what is 20 designed (indiscernible) latter phase of Longshore 21 Lake, although I don't know exactly what that is, 22 but, you know, five foot, six foot, seven and a 23 half foot have been very common approved single 24 family setbacks throughout the county. 25 A VOICE: No, this is side yard. 40 1 MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. It's side yard. And 2 side yard -- 3 A VOICE: Side yard is (indiscernible) . 4 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. So you end up with a, you 5 know, minimum ten-foot separation between the 6 buildings. 7 A VOICE: But it will still have the same 8 impression of a 40-foot high building, with just 9 not much in between. You know, five feet is 10 nothing. 11 MR. ARNOLD: Well, it's ten feet, really. 12 Ten, you know, five on one side and five on the 13 other. So you have a ten-foot separation -- 14 A VOICE: It's a ten-foot separation. 15 MR. ARNOLD: -- between the buildings and 16 sides, which is very normal. If you, again, go to 17 one of the other communities, you'll see how that 18 looks, you know, in terms of five feet -- 19 A VOICE: All the way in the back. 20 MR. ARNOLD: You had your hand up. 21 A VOICE: Yeah. I'm sorry. 22 MR. ARNOLD: Hey, folks. Could we keep it 23 down for just a minute so some other folks can come 24 and have a chance to ask questions? 25 A VOICE: Will we receive notice of the 41 1 Planning Commission meeting so we can 2 (indiscernible) to that. 3 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. If you received notice of 4 this meeting, you'll also receive a notice for the 5 Planning Commission hearing. And then you'll also 6 -- the signs have to go up in advance of the 7 Planning Commission hearing. Big zoning and 8 Collier County signs that I'm sure you've seen 9 around town, they'll be posted on the site as well. 10 A VOICE: Thank you. 11 MR. ARNOLD: Uh-huh. 12 Yes, sir. 13 A VOICE: Can we, at the next juncture, have 14 better visuals so everyone can get their heads 15 around what we're really -- I mean, in front of us. 16 What we have right now is (indiscernible) . I would 17 like to see, for the next presentation, some 18 enhanced visuals so that we really can see what you 19 guys are proposing. 20 A VOICE: We will. I mean, right now, we're 21 -- we don't own it yet right now, so we're not 22 investing the time into the visuals. I mean, we 23 basically have got this great (indiscernible) 24 represents us as far as doing the changes, as far 25 as information to give you, we don't have it. You 42 1 know, it's mostly just an informational meeting 2 tonight, just to bring everybody in together and 3 say, hey, this is what we plan on doing and to go 4 forward with this project, but once we get a little 5 further along and we know it's going to convert to 6 a single family, yes, we'll start investing dollars 7 and develop aerial visuals and (indiscernible) of 8 the homes. 9 A VOICE: So we can better get our heads 10 around your proposal. 11 A VOICE: Sure. 12 A VOICE: Right now, it's a little obscure. 13 A VOICE: Yeah. It is. 14 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) . 15 A VOICE: And it's because it's very 16 informational right now, but as we get the other 17 meetings, when you come to these other meetings, 18 there will more. There will be aerials, there will 19 be renderings, there will be -- you know, you'll 20 see the home styles which are going to come up 21 there. 22 You know, if you like, after, I can show you, 23 move off to the side, maybe, a couple ideas or 24 something, but it's, you know, that's -- we don't 25 really have it yet because we're not investing the 43 1 dollars into it at this time. 2 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) concern for 1, 500 3 square feet or 1,700 square feet? 4 MR. ARNOLD: I'm sorry. I don't understand 5 the question. Oh, how many bedrooms? 6 A VOICE: The number of bedrooms, yes. 7 MR. ARNOLD: Again, we're in the conceptual 8 phases, probably three to six bedrooms, you know. 9 That's 1,500 square feet. I'm talking -- 10 A VOICE: Those are the minimums. 11 MR. ARNOLD: That's the minimum. The minimum 12 is probably three bedrooms, two with a den. I 13 mean, 1,500 square feet (indiscernible) we're 14 probably not going to do a 1,500. That's a 15 minimum. These are 400 plus homes in here. You 16 know, we might have a 4,000 square foot home on 17 some of these, you know, with six bedrooms on here. 18 It's just -- these are the minimum standards. 19 A VOICE: Will there be amenities in that 20 community? 21 MR. ARNOLD: Amenities will be -- there will 22 be -- we are planning to propose a small, kind of a 23 pool area with a little, you know, bathroom, 24 restroom area. Nothing else. Not a tennis court, 25 not a basketball court or anything like that at 44 1 this time. At this time. Now, I can't tell you 2 what could happen in the future, but that's kind of 3 what we're looking at is -- there's not a lot of 4 room, you know, to do a lot, you know, there. But 5 we want to give something to the residents that are 6 there, and a small, little mini -- a small, little 7 pool style, I think, would look nice. I 8 (indiscernible) maybe bocce ball, something 9 (indiscernible) . 10 Yes, ma'am. 11 A VOICE: This is for the developer. What 12 would be the maximum height of homes you would 13 imagine building in this -- 14 A VOICE: Like Wayne said, I think -- what's 15 the minimum standards on there? 16 MR. ARNOLD: Well, right now, we've got it set 17 30 and 40 for your single family. That number can 18 probably come down. 19 A VOICE: Yeah. I mean, typically, I don't 20 know, let's just do the math real quick. I mean, 21 you're at ten-foot ceiling heights, a couple feet 22 if it's two story for the trusses, another nine 23 feet, so it's 12, (indiscernible) , 21, 25 would be 24 elevation. I mean, they're not really over 25. 25 MR. ARNOLD: Very typical two-story, single 45 1 family. 2 A VOICE: I mean, in a two-story home -- and 3 then you have the roof elevation, I'm sorry, so 4 take that another 26 or 27. 5 MR. ARNOLD: Just so you know, I mean, we get 6 caught up in the nuances of the discussion, but the 7 county has two ways to measure height. We have to 8 put both in the PUD document. They have zone 9 height, which is kind of typical. People think the 10 vertical height to the midpoint of the roof, and 11 then the county has an actual height, which is kind 12 of the tippy-top, to the top of everything, height. 13 So you'll find two numbers in our documents, 14 because the county asks us to measure height two 15 different ways, because they were concerned that 16 you could say it's two stories, but what does that 17 really mean. There's not a plan to do over two 18 stories. The plan is just keep it at two stories. 19 Anybody else have a question out there? I 20 thought I saw another hand up over this way. 21 A VOICE: I do have one last question. 22 A VOICE: Okay. Sure. 23 A VOICE: Is the gate manned or is it an 24 automatic gate? 25 A VOICE: The proposed gate -- and someone 46 1 talked about it being close to the road. Again, if 2 you check Firano out, you'll kind of see the design 3 we're planning to do for the gate. We kind of do a 4 recessed gate, you know, into the community, with a 5 turnabout that you can go through the community. 6 Probably four or five cars would line up before 7 they even get to the gate, and then if you can't 8 get through, you do what will be a turnaround 9 (indiscernible) come through. 10 It will be, to answer your question 11 (indiscernible) , it will be a non-manned gate. So 12 it will be automatic with a keypad and bar code 13 readers. 14 But someone brought it up, you know, being 7.5 (indiscernible) close to the road. It's not 16 proposed to go close to the road. It's proposed to 17 go back in the community with a turnabout and a 18 nice monument. You know, you've seen those typical 19 monuments, the landscaping and (indiscernible) , but 20 we're not sure yet. 21 Thank you. Thank you. 22 A VOICE: Yes. Just one question. Have you 23 looked at the projection of the number of vehicles 24 that will be garaged involved in this community? 25 A VOICE: Did you say garaged? 47 1 A VOICE: In other words, how many vehicles 2 are going to be allowed in this community? 3 A VOICE: It's all depending on the DOT. I 4 mean, it's based on -- Wayne can answer this one 5 better than I can. 6 MR. ARNOLD: Maybe -- are you talking trips on 7 the road or are you talking simply -- 8 A VOICE: I'm talking in the community itself. 9 A VOICE: (Indiscernible) restrict people. I 10 guess the question is are you going to have 11 restrictions, probably, for parking vehicles -- 12 MR. ARNOLD: Oh., in the garage 13 (indiscernible) ? We -- our standards are pretty 14 general. We -- I'm not real sure exactly how we'll 15 propose this one, but for the most part, they keep 16 the cars in the garage. You know, I can't -- it's 17 not done, though. So I can't tell you exactly how 18 it is. 19 A VOICE: Okay. So keeping that in 20 perspective, if they were parked in the garage and 21 then also say (indiscernible) parked in the 22 driveway, how many vehicles are we looking at? I'm 23 thinking about the impact when we come down 24 Valewood Drive, trying to get into the community, 25 you know, when people come home or from the 48 1 holidays. 2 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah. I -- there's going to be 3 23 -- roughly -- there's going to be a front 4 setback of approximately 23 feet, I believe from 5 the house to the road. I think now the question is 6 really -- we had to do a traffic analysis as part 7 of this rezoning, and what the traffic engineer 8 did, he took the 152 multi-family units that we 9 had. He's compared it to the 87 homes we're asking 10 for of single family. They generate different 11 levels of trips. 12 So our 87 units generates a very slight number 13 of more peak hour trips than the multi-family did, 14 but the peak -- the peak numbers are based on 15 either 4 p.m. to 6 p.m. peak hour for the county or 16 9 a.m. -- or 7 a.m. to 9 a.m. So we've looked at 17 that as part of it. 18 The county doesn't see any operational 19 characteristics with the option of going to 87 20 units. It's a very nominal increase in numbers. 21 I know that I heard Janet talk about some 22 (indiscernible) things. That's new for me that I 23 need to look at, so we'll be looking at that as 24 well. 25 Yes? 49 1 A VOICE: So that we can make a comparison, 2 when you send out the information, would you 3 include the current plan that the county has 4 approved and then tell us what differences will 5 occur? 6 MR. ARNOLD: Yes. I mean, no, that's easy 7 enough to do, because the current plan is 8 essentially that, that says we can have 152 9 multi-family. Our option is or let us build 87 10 single family type units. 11 A VOICE: But I'm thinking about the original 12 set of setbacks and then what setback you are going 13 to try to build (indiscernible) . 14 MR. ARNOLD: Yeah, there's something that -- 15 it will be a development standards (indiscernible) 16 but if you would like that information, we'll be 17 happy to send it to you. Just let Sharon know or, 18 you know, if you want to tell us your name, we can 19 look it up on the registration that you gave us, 20 your e-mail address. 21 Anybody else? Once, twice. 22 Okay. Thanks, everybody, for coming out. 23 You'll be hearing from us in the future. 24 Thank you and we're adjourned. 25 (Proceedings concluded. ) 50 1 STATE OF FLORIDA 2 COUNTY OF COLLIER 3 4 I, Joyce B. Howell, do hereby certify that: 5 1. The foregoing pages numbered 1 through 49 6 contain a full, true and correct transcript of 7 proceedings in the above-entitled matter, transcribed 8 by me to the best of my knowledge and ability from a 9 digital audio recording. 10 2. I am not counsel for, related to, or 11 employed by any of the parties in the above-entitled 12 cause. 13 3. I am not financially or otherwise 14 interested in the outcome of this case. 15 16 SIGNED AND CERTIFIED: 17 18 Date: November 25, 2013 Joyce B. Howell 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 ti4p' 'Lo 6horeLac January 23,2014 Nancy Gundlach Sent via email:Nancygundlach@coiliergov.net Dear Ms.Gundlach: Attached is the paper for the Planning Commissioners. The Longshore Lake Foundation has reviewed the Amendments to the Quail II PUD ordinance 05-52. We have issues with some of the proposed changes and submit the attached document for inclusion with the information provided to the Collier County Planning Commissioners prior to their February 6th meeting on this Ordinance. Thank you for your assistance. Sincerely, Longshore Lake Foundation,Inc. Peter R.Rach President PRR/skm Enclosure/1 • Longshore Lake Foundation,Inc. 11399 Phoenix Way,Naples,Fl 34119 .239-566-2304 Attachment D Longshore Lake Comments on the Amendment to Quail II PUD Ordinance 05-52 Planning Commission Meeting 2/6/14 Longshore Lake is the community on the eastern side of the Quail II PUD_ We have a common boundary with the Quail 11 property of about 1450 feet. In reviewing the Amended Ordinance, we have concerns and issues with some of the proposed changes. Longshore Lake residents met with representatives from Q. Grady Minor and Associates and Toll Brothers in November 2013 to discuss the proposed PUD changes. Toll Brothers agreed to look into several of our issues and we still hope to have a positive resolution. The Longshore Lake issues on the PUD Amendment are provided. 1. Single-family, Multi-family or both. We questioned the statement: The developer has elected to construct up to 87 single-family attached or detached units or up to 152 multi-family units in the R-1 District." It was unclear to us whether the single-family and multi-family units°could be mixed within the property. We did not want a mixed development. The Toll Brothers representatives told us it would be either all single-family or all multi- family, but not a mixture of both. We suggest making that clear in the Ordinance. 2. Construction Entrance. We asked Toll Brothers to use Executive Drive for their construction entrance. They stated that was their intent. 3. Deceleration Lane. We wanted a Deceleration right turn lane on Valewood Drive into the Quail II property. Traffic on Valewood is heavy and the speed differential between turning vehicles and through traffic is considered a safety issue, especially at the Quail If entrance where Valewood curves, limiting visibility. Toll Brothers did not see the need for a deceleration lane, however, it is our understanding that the County Transportation Department is requiring the right turn deceleration lane. - 4. Lake issues. Stormwater runoff from the Quail II property will drain into our Lake. The current PUD, under Developer Commitments, states: "The development will contribute its proportional share(12%)for lake maintenance for stormwater management to Longshore Lake Foundation." We would like to change the PUD language to add: contribute 12%for lake_ maintenance, "repair, replacement and improvement"for stormwater management. This language would recognize that Quail li stormwater runoff has a 12% effect on all aspects of our lake's health—to include regular maintenance, periodic repair or Longshore Lake Foundation, Inc. 11399 Phoenix Way,Naples, Fl 34119 .239-566-2304 1 replacement of lake management equipment and occasional improvements. This change would formalize the current accommodation where the Quail II owner has been contributing 12% to lake management improvements, including the purchase of aerators in 2013, and it would avoid future confusion after developer turnover to the homeowners association. 5. Amenity Area. The planned Amenity area is immediately adjacent to the Longshore Lake wall, at the northeastern corner. We asked what amenities were planned and the Toll Brothers representatives said it could be a pool or something else. We are concerned about noise immediately next to Longshore residents. In researching the 2005 Ordinance changes, we discovered that, when the property was rezoned from Commercial to Residential —Multifamily, language was included in the PUD to address this issue: "Recreation facilities within the development shall be centrally located toward the middle of the property." The proposed PUD Amendment removes "centrally located"and places the Amenity Area immediately adjacent to Longshore residents. 6. The wall between Longshore and Quail II. The current PUD°states: "The Longshore Lake wall on the East Side of Valewood Village has a gap at the Valewood Villages' far northeast corner. This gap shall be filled with a new wall, matching the existing Longshore Lake walls' height, building material and color constructed by the Valewood Village developer." We anticipate that the developer will construct the "gap" wall, which is currently a chainlink fence about 170 feet long. However, we are concerned about the existing "slat"concrete wall located south of the gap that continues for approximately 800 feet to the south end of the Quail II property. This wall was constructed in 1996 and is showing its age. Once homes in Quail II are constructed, wall replacement will be very difficult and costly, since the wall will be wedged between two rows of homes. We request that the developer replace the "slat"concrete wall during their construction of the "gap"wall. A new wall would enhance the value of their property (rather than have the back of their homes facing a deteriorating, unattractive wall), eliminate disruption to their home buyers (from a future wall replacement) and recognize the value of the remaining useful life of the existing wall to Longshore (a value that would be foregone if the wall has to be replaced early—before Quail II construction). At our meeting in November, Toll Brothers representatives said that replacing the wall was not in their budget. However, they agreed to review this option to see jf they could do anything. Longshore Lake Foundation,Inc. 11399 Phoenix Way,Naples,Fl 34119.239-566-2304 Conclusion These are the issues and concerns of the residents of Longshore Lake. We are an established community with 566 homesites. We would like to be a good neighbor to the Quail II development and would like to work with the developers to resolve our issues. Longshore Lake Foundation,Inc. 11399 Phoenix Way,Naples,Ft 34119.239-566-2304 11655 Quail Village Way Naples,Florida 39119 CREEK R . :iC \ . . QUAII. t23a15■7g-9972Alimin (23,4)S9s-3972 Clubhouse VILLA L "VILLAGE t2) ?Ih- 922 Pru h,1 1 1 4 1 5 0 8-1 4 0 3 FaA FOUNDATION, IN fi h GOLF CLUB n14'Q(1817 rl ',v �iagt i1r�, January 23, 2014 Nancy Gundlach, A . RLA Principal Planner Land Development Services Growth Managen-io:-z Services 2800 North Horsesc Drive Naples, FL 34104 Via: nancv-guntilach @colliergpv.net Re: Objection Unposed Changes to Quail CI PUD (Ordinance 05-52) Dear Nancy, As you know :rile Quail Creek Village community is located within the Quail 11 PUD,which • currently has pending approval. I am writing to express that there are several areas in the proposed amendment, ..vhi,:h we oppose. 1) We do not waarr: ,:1.7ed development and would ask that the 152 units he struck from the amendment any inc up 10 87 single-family units attached or detached"remain, as this getter reflects other hvine.z!hat currently exist in the Quail 11 PUD. ) We want the amendments to.spell ow that the construction entrance will he located on Executive Drive. 3) We want a dec•, ' :smog lane installed on Valewood Drive for Northbound traffic entering this property. 4) The Amenity s`;ould remain in the center of the property as it is currently spelled out in the Quail II PUB. 71 .vvoatld help to ensure that any noise pollution generated by use of the amenity would stay wiz.;2:;:q.r,: :t-i Lis.rict. We realize ti_nr:1.::- neighboring communities have additional concerns. Please know that Quail Creek Village the positions of our neighboring communities. Kin.. t R- ds, vs. Chip Accorsini, President Quail Creek Village Foundation cc: Commissioner Tom Henning, 3299 Tamiami Trail East,Suite 303, Naples,FL 34112-5746 GundlachNancy From: Quail Creek Estates-David L. Govanus [quailcreekestates @embargmail.com] Sent: Friday, January 24, 2014 2:21 PM To: GundlachNancy Subject: Quail Creek Property Owners Association Re: Quail II PUD Attachments: PUD Ordinance 05-52 QUAIL II .pdf Importance: High January 24, 2014 Nancy Gundlach Principal Planner, Planning & Zoning Department Growth Management Division 2800 North Horseshoe Drive Naples, FL 34104 Dear Nancy, The Board of Directors for Quail Creek Property Owners Association has the following concerns regarding the proposed Amendment to the Quail II Ordinance 05-52: 1. Lack of deceleration lane for the entrance on Valewood Drive. Both Longshore Lake and Quail Village have deceleration lanes for safety reasons. Vehicles making 90% turns to enter any community on Valewood drive will cause dangerous conditions for other vehicles unless there are deceleration lanes. We understand that Mark Strain and Reed Jarvi at Collier County Department of Transportation have confirmed this position and have recommended the installation of a deceleration lane on Valewood Drive for Quail IL The requirement for the deceleration lane has been reviewed and discussed extensively, see attached Quail II PUD in 2005, Ordinance No. 05-52 October 11, 2005 Page 15 D -11. However, the proposed PUD contains no such proposal. 2. Lack of plan to require construction vehicles use the entrance on Executive Drive. Valewood Drive would be a dangerous roadway for construction vehicles entering and leaving Quail II under development. The secondary entry on Executive Drive would be ideal for construction and service vehicles. The proposed PUD should contain such a requirement. 3. Lack of certainty. This property has had three major changes in its PUD structure in the last several years, causing adverse market conditions to adjacent property values due to uncertainty of the type of PUD development. We request that the developer choose either single family or multi-family for this development, and the PUD reflect only one such development. The PUD should not contain a continuing option to elect one or the other type of development. The PUD should allow only one future development, not two possible developments. Thank your for you continued assistance, David L. Govanus CAM General Manager Quail Creek Estates 4886 Pond Apple Drive South Naples, Florida 34119 239.594.6966 2 AGENDA ITEM 9-B Co e-r County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: ZONING SERVICES—PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING &REGULATION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 6,2014 SUBJECT: PUDZ-A-PL20130000175–NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD PROPERTY OWNER& APPLICANT/AGENT: Applicant/Owner: Agent: Rigby Enterprises,LLC Robert J. Mulhere FAICP c/o Emilio Sanchez Director of Planning 4995 Airport Road North 950 Encore Way Naples, FL 34105 Hole Montes Naples,FL 34110 NOTE: Rigby Enterprises, LLC owns Tract B wherein the amendment is to be applicable. Many other property owners and associations own or otherwise control property within the overall Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUD. REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project to allow development of one additional single family home in Tract B, and add sports instructional schools and camps as a principal use and a private school accessory to a sports instructional school as an accessory use within Tract B. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The Naples Bath and Tennis Club is located on the west side of Airport-Pulling Road (CR 31), between Pine Ridge Road(CR 896) and Golden Gate Parkway (CR 886)in Section 14, Township 49S,Range 25E,Collier County,Florida. (See the map on next page for details.) PUDZ-A-PL20130000175—NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD Page 1 of 12 February 6,2014CCPC Revised: 1/21/14 Iii", is ¢ ,©00000©00000 d natal �,cap € fir z Irk M O '�� 4 O 0 � "a ml .131 0 OM eaixoddae,r© �F t¢WO avoa ONiruld—iaoaaIv r r 1 ° t Q. ,„::,, ::,;::::,:::::".. ,.",,",, ,,,,,,,,,, „,--.,,::,,,,.•_ir ' ' , :14. ;1::::Ii PIN '::,:,:::: i;O:; ."i;:i :'''' ';' ''''' irig§ V. 1r,, - gli )7,7,....Hi; :it:.!:‘,!),,.! . !rP"'F.;.iik.,,,, .;! G Z - \ . :... ':' 1- , te ,� 'l'r .,„, .,,,,:!1,I,E::::::.:11,,, .:::;, \ li 4 V ..........,:: :, .... O D - ''''-'7. 4" eit6 ..' 174.'''..-:: .:..4.:' i:'.::4 74.4-..-. :. . iii i 1 * tiyi r r nfi i 1 it,, _ _ i i vo,:::.::„:: to ::::410, lt:„:,....:47 1 . ix, N. sm.110„„„, INI---irlelkgit, ,.._ O a MOS IX 10N a D a 4t Gnvn3moe wreavR virrvs i I ; e « Vii, v8 E- g "o Si Ce Gsc-3tvcsn3_tit sc-3lvlsa3iNS a� LMNGSTON ROM I d O moil NDLs xWl �t - 6' €tlSt � z , I. a u. L s 9N! cm.amTnruwew Oa 3s'e�rlaOdnitl , 12 is -4 ° MEM i;;iAiallingralliffS1 " aiw-,_., ffi ObOn NNWt3,31000D PA h 1r s ., A (WWII 'oval warm t ne~;N vvm�.nrrvi. 74 ww .( 1 Ce '.4.( ' g9lj I Q2 , g a p` 'g �q Q b t" 5 1 $• E_ G 1 1 n Sii " it i kI J61 C i i 7 o 3Yi.cry Jn 9a' � F6 O to t,;33.g„�s n 4N�NM N"� P It!B iv,:: a 7 9 a a 2; P$ yr ,l b" g11 . u .•14 i s m w `[ ina 8 85 - o ya g ix 7 2 ^ 3 a g a " 9 n ( ° N ,`g. F-a m 3 c I' d$ w • cE u o.d ,G5 W d .e 4 d :112. J 2; �" 0. -J .d. VVVV 010111V0 II J_/-3 iOV J �.— ` 11L41191Ad •` t - 3 >s ti 1 i a n ; 44,,, x Cs t \-'01 [ 1 , 1 a t l� k u. \) c:;) j._.... '� \ J J u J .__ ;ae .. } ° 111 Cat.� � 011 11 g j1,2 LL „I a X10 .< jII !I 1 ; r -. i .5. ... 'i ra I «r4�C: 1 �. j � ►�1 1 CD '-IV4 0 1 111111W _- -/ lr IILP t1,AeCl LlitllA'tl^- �-�, • ii al Z_� /J - r p t IQ 1� ( �{•` 1 ' LLN141t}k111 A1111YI- �; U ~ , O v �. x a1lI \\,,71114401 N A' 'IONIS . ' • NM .«.1111 1 • „a, aW sNOVWWOo --3 10dkj1. 1 ` 1 1 A a i:mwuo . I �" k J1 _Z 0 I .aaa :a1a' °a 1•'•♦••♦•+11.11♦•♦•♦1•'°°• ¢ a � N tt ..41•.•4 • •°•4••1°♦•411.4°•°•4 0 :4:'1•:1e':':4:1:1:::a:'1'1'a'• 0 N N I •:.'4444444444.4.4.4 141 : 444: ' :'•°+°• :44 11 •4°!•-• f 11° •••/ 1/•i•i a e3 ':':'111' Q■ x I ° .1 •: ` 14. •1.1•' 1 •.• 9 V °1°• a•a1.1•a•11a11• 1 L 2 i 11.1: •°111:11•: i 1' 44 1111.1• V c---- 1111.. 41'11. 1' ': .: \ 4' r 1 4 .1 :1:4 :111,1. •':1, ° .•.° , :4:411 :111' 11:4:. e • • 41.1 .111111° 4'444°. .1:•:.° •*N/:.4•'•'.°1 14.4•♦♦• < 1 ::::.. .•. m y.�,, . 1 �it*:::: �O p8 N ymrryy� II �4 °::::14�::::i1 ,f 3*N.- IYN I .Li__�_1�1 __.. '_'L�° '_1 ' Ia1•a LMo .4' '•4°4 O 1 . O ft , : ._-- ,'•:a A.. G N C 17 I I : e: �:°. o N •/ 11..1°: 1 N'a°a i W o.N O W is a.1 :�a114 J :,;:.1 L Q .:4p: co ..41414 1• gip' a.:4:11•:•4\. .a •y•a1••a1•• M�Q ��.� •°. • ' :'• 1.•:•:•:•:°4.4.•1•3•:•:44:4:4.• ' • 14 4 ill..1 �� 1 _ • ••♦ •••a •• • . •11 1•.•.•41 410:4: ° ' 1a•• •144444411♦ 4.:• • •41 • . 1 . • • 1 • 4 4444:•• • • • • I .•:•:.1.1.4.4.'i1'1 4 •4•'::4.44 • • 14414,44 !.14•• • 4 •1 ••♦ 4:••4.411.14 111.1 i° :4*1414♦1:4.41•♦ .70444.:•:•414:,4•••4•.♦1.1.4♦41 • 1 •• • ••14.41 , :4:14.4•• 4'4♦•/• • *riI •4••1.4••4 '1•::::1••••1•,•14• y1.:: 41114,•4 , . .:k••'11.4•• ((FnJ a• t •1 4... C CZ . . . . . . . - . . . . . . . . . . . . co CO U'^ Z 8 g W 550 g x J Z LU �'�i < Ca� .. R iii g LL F 1 .6 ; "/2g m406 tan go .,- y'1 „°_ z O c� 0 7. - W < 13z G^ 0 N Z 4g zy -ea{y�y��fl1pp��z��=p��pWS Z SS ?w z a= ® '.. PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The mostly developed subject property is currently zoned PUD by virtue of Ordinance Number 81- 61. That ordinance approved 516 units in Tracts A and C, and a recreational tract in Tract B on 153±total acres. Single-family,multi-family and tennis recreational uses were approved. Tract A was approved for a maximum of 423 multi-family units. Buildings in Tract A are allowed a maximum height of 30 feet/3 stories. Tract B was approved for tennis courts and other recreational facilities along with a clubhouse and transient lodging units. Tract C was approved for a maximum of 93 single family units and Tract C was approved for lots with a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet, and a maximum height of 30 feet/2 stories. An amendment was approved in 2010 (Ordinance # 10-05) that allowed the petitioner to change the approval process needed to develop the transient lodging units. As noted on page 1, the applicant in this current request seeks to add one single-family home to Tract B, add sports instructional schools and camps as a principal use, and add a private school accessory to a sports instructional school as an accessory use within Tract B. Property development regulations are proposed for the single family home, and limitations are proposed for the school. The applicant is not seeking any deviations. SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: (see Aerial photo provided on page 3) North: Pine Ridge Shopping Center,rezoned as the Falls of Naples PUD,and multi-family units of the Quail Run Golf Club with zoning designations of RMF-16 and Golf Course(GC) East: Airport-Pulling Road, then Carillion Shopping Center with a zoning designation of PUD (Carillon PUD); and the Banyan Woods residential project, with a zoning designation of PUD (Meadowbrook PUD with a density of 6.0 units per acre); and the Timberwood residential project, with a zoning designation of PUD(Timberwood PUD with a density of 6.05 units per acre) South: Pinewoods, a developed, single-family and multi-family development with a zoning designation of RMF-16 West: Multi-family units within the Quail Run Golf Club with zoning designations of RMF-16 and GC PUDZ-A-PL20130000175—NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD Page 2 of 12 February 6,2014CCPC Revised: 1/21/14 % "1 may+.. -\,1 v-4r - s%,;1..!.-....r" , " / %.4:%'..-., !/- '' r-�. t s I ,� .. - ,t,..r. P � y 'Ih a r, % • �' ..� 14 3 :,ti .,x' ..-•c .-=.y P�.a+: -. � �/ � • L. IL , 't. I 4' ;yc`Z ry .. ._J• 1,, .I,�r 4f. Ill s v� f \ , ---- - --*-- 1. .g„ , ma, f - .'. t. ,, , - .,, ,, ..,, Aerial Photo (subject site depiction is approximate) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element (FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban - Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict), as identified on the Future Land Use Map of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition, this Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of 4 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). This district is intended to accommodate a variety of residential and non-residential uses, including mixed-use developments such as Planned Unit Developments. The eligible project density per the Density Rating System of the FLUE is 4 DU/A or 615 dwelling units (Base Density of 4 du/a x 153.70 ac. = 614.8 or 615 dwelling units),based on the total PUD acreage. However, if the Recreational Club Tract, which allows transient lodging use, is subtracted, the eligible Base Density of 4 DU/A yields 534 dwelling units (153.70 total PUD acreage — 20.30 Tract B acreage = 133.40 acres). The proposed amendment is to allow 517 dwelling units. This PUD is essentially built-out. Therefore, analysis of Objective 7 Polices—pertaining to a mix of uses,project interconnections, sidewalks,etc.—is not provided. PUDZ-A-PL20130000175—NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD Page 3 of 12 February 6,2014CCPC Revised: 1/21/14 Based on the above analysis, Comprehensive Planning staff finds the proposed amendment consistent with the GMP. Transportation Element: Transportation Planning staff has reviewed the petitioner's Traffic Impact Statement (TIS) and has determined that the adjacent roadway network has sufficient capacity to accommodate this project within the 5 year planning period. Therefore, the subject application can be found consistent with Policy 5.1 of the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan(GMP). Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental staff has evaluated the amendment for consistency with the CCME. Environmental review staff has determined the petition may be found consistent with the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Collier County Growth Management Plan and recommends approval. GMP Conclusion: The GMP is the prevailing document to support land use decisions such as this proposed rezoning. Staff is required to make a recommendation regarding a finding of consistency or inconsistency with the overall GMP as part of the recommendation for approval, approval with conditions,or denial of any rezoning petition. A finding of consistency with the FLUE and FLUM designations is a portion of the overall finding that is required, and staff believes the petition is consistent with the FLUM and the FLUE as indicated previously in the GMP discussion. The proposed rezone is consistent with the GMP Transportation Element as previously discussed. Environmental staff also recommends that the petition be found consistent with the CCME. Therefore, zoning staff recommends that the petition be found consistent with the goals, objective and policies of the overall GMP. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5,Planning Commission Recommendation(commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report(referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: There are no proposed changes or proposed impacts to the previously approved preserve locations as shown on the PUD master plan. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues as well as roadway capacity, and recommends approval subject to the Developer/owner commitments as provided in the PUD ordinance. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested PUDZ-A-PL20130000175—NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD Page 4 of 12 February 6,2014CCPC Revised: 1/21/14 uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. To support that opinion staff offers the following analysis of this project. 1 ors, • • a.L + 4\ ' .. Jr- #0,01 ,,. .,. .%4010VA19$ • t i. sue..;' • • y . j y..ry yjpr 1,2 :...: • . . ro,.. -44, , ,,, A....,_.. , . 4.... N.-,-.e. Excerpt from Applicant's Aerial Photo showing proposed development area C ra�O: 1 —, + 1! b, _ N' ', I. ; • ''',°e` i 0� rya 1 11 I / al a a Vi '.- �i?h d6 I so CC f / d V r 11/..I 0 yl1I0.YT 9NIU4N/� IILM 9+tl0.11t.3151VM.- I1• I a a g ir1N 301i3N nlwre-limn W 8a \ � '* -� ' • -V 1)Vl1 b 2 o is 4'4 a • 1 i - ----,a Excerpt from 81061 Ordinance Master Plan PUDZ-A-PL20130000175—NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD Page 5 of 12 February 6,2014CCPC Revised: 1/21/14 As noted on Page 2, single-family, multi-family and tennis recreational uses were approved. Tract A was approved for a maximum of 423 multi-family units. Buildings in Tract A are allowed a maximum height of 30 feet/3 stories. Tract B was approved for tennis courts and other recreational facilities along with a clubhouse and transient lodging units. Tract C was approved for a maximum of 93 single family units and Tract C was approved for lots with a minimum lot area of 10,000 square feet,and a maximum height of 30 feet/2 stories. The Tract B subject property is surrounded on all sides by other areas of the PUD. As shown on the excerpts above, the portions of tract B where the single-family home is to be located are separated from any other residential units in Tract A by common areas of Tract D. The proposed property development regulations for the new single-family home indicate there will be a 30 foot setback to Clubhouse Drive and a 5 foot setback to the common areas. That common area setback is the same for Tract A uses. The new home is proposed to have a 35 foot maximum zoned height and an actual maximum height of 40 feet. That height, given the common areas that surround the home site should allow this taller structure to be compatible with the other residential structures that are limited to three stories or 30 feet in height. The proposed sports instructional schools and camps and private school accessory to a sports instructional school uses already existing in Tract B. The uses appear to have evolved over time from the permitted principal clubhouse and tennis courts use for use of the residents, into a tennis club and school for non-residents. The use does not appear to create any incompatibility issue. No complaints registered with Code Enforcement; the residential who appeared at the Neighborhood Information Meeting spoke overwhelming in support of the school's continued use. The overall project as well as the proposed change of uses are compatible with the surrounding area based upon the placement of required landscape buffers, lakes, and preserve areas. The proposed development area is clustered within the central portion of the site to avoid impacts to adjacent parcels. Zoning staff recommends that this petition be found compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses,pursuant to the requirement of FLUE Policy 5.4. FINDINGS OF FACT: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the proposed uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area as limited by staff. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. PUDZ-A-PL20130000175—NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD Page 6 of 12 February 6,2014CCPC Revised: 1/21/14 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, 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. Documents submitted with the application, which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the undeveloped portions of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the report from Comprehensive Planning staff and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this petition may be found consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Staff has provided a review of the proposed uses and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed changes in use should not create any incompatibility issues,and the uses approved in the original PUD rezone were determined to be compatible. The petitioner is revising some property development regulations, but staff believes uses remain compatible given the proposed development standards and project commitments. (See zoning analysis for more details.) 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of open space meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Additionally, the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. PUDZ-A-PL201 300001 75—NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD Page 7 of 12 February 6,2014CCPC Revised: 1/21/14 The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity,wastewater disposal system,and potable water supplies to accommodate this project. 8. 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. The petitioner is not seeking any deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts(LDC Section 2.03.06.A). Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the"Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject site is already zoned PUD. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such the amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to PUDZ-A-PL20130000175—NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD Page 8 of 12 February 6,2014CCPC Revised: 1/21/14 develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance regulations. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment can been deemed consistent County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project includes numerous restrictions and standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project with the mitigation that will be provided by the developer. Staff believes the petition can be deemed consistent with all elements of the GMP. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The location of the proposed buildings, and the height restrictions and setbacks will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed PUD amendment should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. PUDZ-A-PL20130000175—NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD Page 9 of 12 February 6,2014CCPC Revised: 1/21/14 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact,the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the subject property already has a zoning designation of PUD; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and PUDZ-A-PL20130000175—NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD Page 10 of 12 February 6,2014CCPC Revised: 1/21/14 as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The applicant's agents conducted a duly noticed MM on November 19, 2013, at Sanchez-Casal Clubhouse, in Naples Bath and Tennis Club. Please see the attached NIM synopsis and Question and Answer sheets provided by the agent. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office reviewed the staff report for this petition on January 17,2014. RECOMMENDATION: Zoning and Land Development Review Services staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDZ-A-PL20130000175 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval PUDZ-A-PL20130000175—NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD Page 11 of 12 February 6,2014CCPC Revised: 1/21/14 PREPARED BY: aailipy n./ 041Iq KA SELEM, AICP, PRINCIPAL PLANNER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING REVIEWED BY: i; RAY OND V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ZONING APPROVED BY: �07A, -2 9 SALAN ID /'��" ISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the March 25,2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDZ-A-PL201 300001 75—NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PUD Page 12 of 12 February 6,2014CCPC Revised: 1/13/14 ORDINANCE NO. 14- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING RESOLUTION NUMBER R-73-22-C WHICH ESTABLISHED THE NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS CLUB PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT,AS AMENDED BY ORDINANCE NUMBERS 74-47,75-48,81-61 AND 10-05,TO ALLOW CONSTRUCTION OF A SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING UNIT WITHIN TRACT B,RECREATIONAL CLUB DEVELOPMENT AND TO ALLOW SPORTS INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOLS AND CAMPS AS A PRINCIPAL USE AND A PRIVATE SCHOOL ACCESSORY TO A SPORTS INSTRUCTIONAL SCHOOL AS AN ACCESSORY USE WITHIN TRACT B, RECREATIONAL CLUB DEVELOPMENT; AND FURTHER PROVIDING FOR DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS AND ADOPTION OF EXHIBIT E-1, LOCATION MAP FOR SINGLE FAMILY HOME WITHIN TRACT B. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON AIRPORT ROAD, SOUTH OF PINE RIDGE ROAD IN SECTION 14, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDA- PL20130000175] WHEREAS, Robert J. Mulhere of Hole Montes, Inc. representing Rigby Enterprises, LLC, petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Naples Bath and Tennis Club Planned Unit Development. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to RPUD Document. The RPUD Document, attached as Exhibit "A"to Ordinance No. 81-61, as amended and restated, is hereby amended and replaced with the RPUD Document attached hereto as Exhibit "A"and incorporated herein by reference. SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this day of ,2014. Naples Bath&Tennis 1PUDA-PL20130000175 1 of 2 Rev. 12/17/13 A'1"1'FST: BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk , Chairman Approved as to form and legality: Heidi Ashton-Cicko .a Managing Assistant County Attorney Attachments: Exhibit A— Amended and Restated RPUD Document Exhibit E-1 —Location of Single Family Home within Recreational Club Development Tract B CP\13-CPS-01240\17 Naples Bath&Tennis\PUDA-PL20130000175 2 of 2 Rev. 12/17/13 DEVELOPMENT PLAN FOR NAPLES BATH&TENNIS CLUB COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA A PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT BY: NAPLES BATH&TENNIS CLUB,INC. NAPLES,FLORIDA ADOPTED MARCH 1973 1st.Revision November 1974 2na Revision August 1975 3ra.Revision August 1981 4th Revision June 1996(by resolution of Collier County Planning Commission) 5"' Revision February 2010 6t1i Revision, 2014* ENGINEERS WILSON,MILLER,BARTON,SOLL&PEEK,INC. 1383 Airport Road North Naples,Florida 33942 EXHIBIT"A" CONTAINING 34 PAGES II. . .. . .. • ... TENNIS REALTY,LLC Of • .. . . -- - .. - . -- - 5133 Castollo Drive, : - , •• - . • • 239.263.6931/239.263.6981 fax . ;?;: . - DOCUMENT DATE: JULY 17,2009 *Robert J.Mulhere,FAICP Hole Monies,Inc. 950 Encore Way Naples,FL 34110 Page 1 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words*Meek-through arc deletions. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPCWaples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx INDEX STATEMENT OF INTENT INDEX LIST OF EXHIBITS PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION SECTION I PROJECT DEVELOPMENT SECTION II TRACT A: MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SECTION III TRACT B: RECREATIONAL-CLUB DEVELOPMENT SECTION IV TRACT C: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT SECTION V TRACT D: COMMONS AREA"I"DEVELOPMENT SECTION VI TRACT E: COMMONS AREA"P"DEVELOPMENT SECTION VII OWNERSHIP,OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE SECTION VIII DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS SECTION IX REFERENCES APPENDIX A. PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE B. OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE DIAGRAM EXHIBITS Page 2 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words are deletions. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Arnendment\CCPCNaples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx LIST OF EXHIBITS Exhibit A Evidence of Agent Assignment Naples Bath and Tennis Club February 23, 1973 Letter to Collier County Commission Exhibit B Evidence of Unified Control of Property Trustee's Deed recorded January 8, 1973 Official Record Book 497,Pages 188, 188A Exhibit C Project General Location and Surrounding Land Uses Wilson,Miller,Barton&Soll,Inc.,Naples,Florida, Drawing;File No.4G-123,Sept. 1972.Revised February 21, 1973. Exhibit D Topographic Survey Wilson,Miller,Barton&Soll,Inc.,Naples,Florida, Drawing;File No.4G-121, Sheets 1 and 2, Sept. 1972. Exhibit E Plot Plan of Development Wilson,Miller,Barton&Soll,Inc.,Naples,Florida, Drawing;File No. 5G-30,March 1973. Exhibit E-1 Location of Single-Family Home within Recreational Club Development Tract `B' Exhibit F Conceptual Plan of Development Wilson,Miller,Barton&Soli,Inc.,Naples,Florida, Drawing;File No. 5G-31,March 1973. Page 3 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words shush-through are deletions. H:\2012\2012 101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx SECTION I PROPERTY OWNERSHIP AND DESCRIPTION 1.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the location and ownership of the property, and to describe the existing conditions of the property proposed to be developed under the project name of the Naples Bath and Tennis Club. 1,2 LEGAL DESCRIPTION The subject property,being 153.7 acres,is described as: The South 1/2 of the Northeast 1/4 and the North 1/2 of The Southeast 1/a, Section 14,Township 49 South, Range 25 East,less the State Road S-31 Right-of-Way, in Collier County,Florida. 1.3 PROPERTY OWNERSHIP The subject property is currently under the ownership of Naples Bath and Tennis Club, Ltd., an Ohio limited partnership, of 395 Thirteenth Avenue South, Naples, Florida. Evidence of unified control of the property is set forth in Exhibit"B",Trustee's Deed. The owner of Tract B is Rigby Enterprises, LLC. 1.4 GENERAL DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTY AREA A. Exhibit "C" illustrates the general location of the property, the current zoning classification of surrounding properties, and adjacent land developments. A list of the current owners of adjacent properties was furnished as part of the "Application for Public Hearing",Reference No, 3. B. Generally,the property is bounded on the east by Florida State Road S-31, a two- laned paved rural highway and on the west by recreational oriented developments. Royal Poinciana Golf Club is an existing high quality golf and country club. Forest Lakes Estates is a residential — golf course community currently under construction, Adjacent properties denoted on Exhibit "C" as A-1 zone classification are currently undeveloped. C. The current zone classification of the subject property is A-1, Agricultural District. The property lies within Collier County Water-Sewer District `B" and Collier County Water Management District 7. Page 4 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words eicuek through are deletions. H:\.2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx 1.5 PHYSICAL DESCRIPTION The subject property lies on the eastern slope of the Gordon River Basin, which drains north to south into the Bay of Naples. The property drains generally in a southwesterly direction from an approximate average elevation of 9.5 feet Mean Sea Level along the northeast and east boundaries to an extreme low elevation of 6.0 feet M.S.L. in a small cypress head located in the southwest corner of the property.The average elevation of the property is approximately 9.0 feet Mean Sea Level. Existing surface elevations of the property are illustrated in Exhibit"D",Topographic Survey. Upland surface drainage on to the property is very limited.State Road S-31 along the east boundary of the property and Pine Ridge Road which lies approximately 1,300 feet north of and parallel to the north property line act as physical ridges preventing upland surface flows into the area. Pertinent drainage features of the immediate area are illustrated in Exhibit"F",Conceptual Plan of Development. The property is currently heavily covered with second growth pines with a few scattered small clusters of cypress trees. Undergrowth generally consists of grasses and scattered patches of palmetto.According to Soil Conservation Service soil survey maps of the area soils of this property area include Keri fine sands and Ochopee fine sandy marls. Page 5 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words straels-through are deletions, H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PG-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx SECTION II PROJECT DEVELOPMENT 2.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth and generally described the project plan of development, the respective land-use Tracts included within the project, and general base project criteria for the Naples Bath&Tennis Club. 2.2 GENERAL A. Regulations for development of the Naples Bath & Tennis Club shall be in accordance with the contents of this document, Section 11.31 PUD Planned Unit Development District and other applicable Sections and parts of the "Collier County Zoning Regulations",Reference No. 1. B. Unless otherwise noted, the definitions of all terms shall be the same as the definitions set forth in the"Collier County Zoning Regulations",Reference No. 1. 2.3 PROJECT PLAN AND LAND-USE TRACTS A. The project plot plan including street layout and land-use Tracts is illustrated in Exhibit `E", Plot Plan of Development. The project shall consist of five land-use Tracts of general area and configuration as shown in Exhibit"E": 1. Tract A: Multi-family Residential (±) 36.2 Acres 2. Tract B: Recreational Club (±) 20.3 Acres 3. Tract C: Single Family Residential (±) 32,9 Acres 4. Tract D: Commons Area"I"(Interior) (±) 38.9 Acres 5. Tract E: Commons Area"P"(Perimeter) (±) 25,4 Acres Total Area (f) 153.7 Acres B. Transient lodging units accessory to the main Clubhouse facility shall be constructed in Tract B Recreational Club area. C. Areas illustrated as "Lakes" in Exhibit "E" shall be constructed lakes, or upon approval, parts thereof may be green areas in which as much natural foliage as practicable shall be preserved. Such areas, lakes and/or natural green areas, shall be of general area and configuration as shown in Exhibit"E". D. In addition to the various areas and specific items shown in Exhibit "E", such easements (utility, private, semi-public, etc.) shall be established within or along the various land-use Tracts as may be necessary or deemed desirable for the service, function,or convenience of the project inhabitants. Page 6 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words stfuelf-through are deletions. F1:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(I-7-2013).docx 2.4 MAXIMUM PROJECT DENSITY No more than a maximum of 516 517 permanent residential units, single family and multi-family, shall be constructed in the total project area. This maximum unit criterion shall take precedence over all other maximum unit criteria stated elsewhere in this document for respective land-use Tracts. 2.5 DEVELOPMENT SEQUENCE AND SCHEDULE A. The sequence of project development shall be as follows: Project Phase No. 1 - Clubhouse,Commons area, recreational areas and multi-family areas in(±)Southeast 1/4 of project site; Project Phase No.2- Commons area,single family lots in (±)Southwest t/<of project site; Project Phase No.3 - Commons area,single family lots, Multi-family areas in(±)Northwest 1/4 of project site; Project Phase No. 4- Commons area,recreational areas and Multi-family areas in(±)Northeast of t/,project site. B. The tentative schedule of development, as of this date is set forth in Appendix A of this document. 2.6 PROJECT PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS Prior to the issuance of a building permit for Project Phase construction, final and complete construction plans shall receive the approval of the County Planning Director to insure compliance with the Development Plan. Project Phase plans shall include,but are not limited to,all proposed improvements in all common areas including landscaping and architectural amenities, underground utilities in land-use Tracts, and clearing and earthwork construction for all areas of the respective Phase. Page7of27 Words underlined are additions;words steagh are deletions. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL•2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx SECTION III TRACT A:MULTI-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 3.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan and regulations for the area designated as Tract A, Multi-family residential on the Plot Plan of Development, Exhibit"E". 12 MAXIMUM DENSITY No more than a maximum number of 423 residential units shall be constructed in.Tract A. 3.3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. Tract A shall be developed on a basis of seven condominium parcels of general area and configuration as shown in Exhibit `B". Multi-family condominium parcels are shown as MP Condominium Parcels A through I in Exhibit"E". B. The maximum number of residential units allowable for each Condominium Parcel shall be directly proportional to the percentage of useable area in the respective parcel to the total useable area in Tract A. "Useable area" shall be understood to include all areas in Tract A or respective Condominium Parcel less those areas in Tract A or respective Condominium Parcel designated as lakes in Exhibit`B". C. Condominium Parcel areas and the distribution of residential units are tabulated on Exhibit "E". Condominium Parcel areas, dimensions and configurations may be varied subject to the approval of the County Planning Director provided that such variations would not constitute a net encroachment of the Commons Areas. D. Each Condominium Parcel shall be provided with pedestrian access to Commons Areas "I" and "P" either directly or via legal easements across other parcels or Tracts within the project. 3.4 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used, in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1.) Single-Family residences 2.) Two-Family residences Page 8 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words etiveli- ire*gli arc deletions. li:\2012\2012I0I\WP\PUD Amcndment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL.2013-0000175(l-7-2013).docx 3.) Multi-Family residences B. Accessory Uses: 1.) Accessory uses and structures,including private garages. 2.) Recreational uses and facilities. 3.5 REGULATIONS 3.5.1 GENERAL: All yards, set-backs, and other criteria listed below shall be understood to be in relation to the respective Condominium Parcel boundary lines. 3.5.2 MINI1vIUM YARDS: A. Yards abutting a street—35 feet. • B. All yards abutting other residential land-use areas or Tract B,Recreational Club shall be a minimum of 20 feet. C. All yards abutting common use areas except as provided in A. above shall be a minimum of five feet. 3.5.3 MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: Each residential unit shall have a minimum floor area of 600 square feet. 3.5.4 MAXIMUM LOT COVERAGE:25%of useable area. 3.5.5 MAXIMUM HEIGHT:Three story or 30 feet above grade. 3.6 PARKING,LOADING AND UNLOADING REQUIREMENTS 3.6.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS: The general requirements and specifications set forth in Section 8.1 —Definitions,Section 8.2 —General Requirements and Specifications,Paragraphs 1 and 2 and Section 8.4— Requirements for Off-Street Loading and Unloading, Paragraph 4, of Reference No. 1 shall apply. 3.6.2 LOCATION: Parking, loading and unloading spaces required for a respective Condominium Parcel shall be located within said parcel. 3.6.3 REQUIREMENTS: A. Parking Spaces—One and one-half parking spaces per residential unit. Page 9 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words siiuok through are deletions. l-I:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175 0-7-2013),docx B. Loading and Unloading Spaces —One loading space for the first 20 units, two spaces for 21 to 40 units,three spaces for more than 40 units. C. Adequate screened parking area for campers,boats and trailers. 3.6.4 SET-BACK REQUIREMENTS: All parking, loading and unloading areas shall be setback a minimum of 35 feet from abutting streets located in Common areas and a minimum of ten feet from side and rear property lines. 3.7 PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS All Multi-Family Condominium Parcels shall be developed in accordance with the regulations, standards, and the intent of this document. Prior to the issuance of a building permit for condominium parcel, the final plans for construction of the respective parcel shall receive the approval of the County Planning Director. Page 10 of 27 Words underlined,are additions;words a ekthmoglt are deletions. H:\20I2\2012 101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx SECTION IV TRACT B: RECREATIONAL CLUB DEVELOPMENT 4.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan and regulations for the area designated as Tract B, Recreational Club on the Plot Plan of Development, Exhibit .E„ 4.2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. The site development, including location of Clubhouse, transient lodging unit areas, their street and parking layout, and location of recreational facilities of Tract B shall generally conform to the lines, areas and notes set for in Exhibit «E» B. All buildings and facilities within the Tract shall be for the use of the Club, Club members,and their guests only. 4.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure,or part thereof,shall be erected, altered or used,or land or water used, in whole or in part,for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1.) Recreational club,sports instructional schools or camps. 2.4-) Tennis Courts and Handball Courts and similar facilities. 3.2) Shuffleboard courts,swimming pools,and other similar types of facilities. 4.3.) Clubhouse with restaurant and cocktail lounges. 5.) One single-family home to be located iu the area within Tract B depicted on PUD Exhibit"E-1". B. Accessory Uses: 1.) Private school accessory to an approved sports instructional school,such as a tennis academy. 2.4-) Pro-shop, practice courts, and other customary accessory uses of tennis clubs or similar establishments. Page 11 of 27 Words underlined arc additions;words are deletions. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx 3,2,-) Gift shops, sports equipment sales and similar uses intended to serve members of the Club and their guests. 4,37) Transient lodging units are hereby found to be an appropriate and compatible accessory of this private club development, not withstanding any other timing or completion provision for phased development plans set forth elsewhere in this PUD Ordinance, so long as such units will comply with the development standards set forth below. The transient lodging units shall be subject to review and approval through the County's adopted site development plan procedures as provided for in LDC Section 10.02.3 or as it may be amended, prior to issuance of building permits. Criteria to be evaluated by staff as part of the site development plan review process shall include, but not be limited to the following issues; the number of units, square footage per unit, building design, landscaping and parking requirements of the LDC. a) Transient Lodging Units — Additional Development Standards and Limitations: i) The minimum setback from a tract boundary shall be the same as for buildings for Principal Uses, as set forth in Paragraph 4.4.2.A., below. ii) Transient lodging units shall be physically proximate to the club house and its associated restaurants, lounges, and recreational facilities. The transient lodging units shall be located in a structure(s) that shall be a physical expansion or extension of, or within 30 feet of, the club house and its associated restaurants, lounges,and recreational facilities. iii) The total site area proposed for the transient lodging facilities shall not exceed 5%of the Tract B area. iv) The height shall be limited to a maximum of two(2)stories not to exceed 30 feet. v) Parking areas shall be as required by the LDC in effect at the time of final site development plan application. vi) The maximum number of transient lodging units shall be limited to, and shall be determined in part, by the application of these development standards; provided further that the total number of transient lodging units may be less than, but shall not exceed 48 units. Page 12 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words struelchreugh are deletions. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naplcs Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx vii)The paved driveway, which is the southern leg of the western extension of Clubhouse Drive within Tract B, shall not be relocated/moved. 5.4-) A private school, not to exceed 100 students (enrollment limited to students of the tennis academy/recreational club). Accessory uses associated with the single-family home as set forth in Section 3.4.B. C. "Lake" Areas: Areas within Tract B shown as lakes in Exhibit °B" shall be classified as unusable space and no facilities except pedestrian walks or paths, landscaping,small docks or shelters,or other similar use shall be permitted. 4.4 REGULATIONS 4.4.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: A. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structures,location of access streets and parking areas, and location and treatment of buffer areas. B. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and neighboring properties from direct glare or other interference. 4.4.2 SET-BACK REQUIREMENTS: A. All principal use building structures shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the Tract boundaries,and shall be set back a minimum of 50 feet from residential use tracts, except for the permitted single-family home which shall provide the following setbacks from the parcel boundaries as depicted on Exhibit"E-1": Single-Family Home Principal Structures Adjacent to Clubhouse Drive: 30 feet Adjacent to Commons Area"I": 5 feet Single-Family Home Accessory Structures Same as for Principal Structures B. All principal use building structures shall have a minimum separation of 20 feet. C. Except for the streets shown in Exhibit`B"and pedestrian facilities aid single-family homeper Section 4.4.2.A,all streets,parking areas, Page 13 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words atruok rough are deletions. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PLr2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx recreational courts, and accessory facilities shall be set back a minimum of 20 feet from the Tract boundaries. 4.4.3 MAXIMUM HEIGHT: Two stories or 30 feet except for the pennitted single- family home which shall shall be subject to a Zoned height maximum of 35 feet and Actual maximum height of 40 feet. 4.5 PARKING,LOADING AND UNLOADING REQUIREMENTS 4.5.1 GENERAL REQUIREMENTS: The general requirements and specifications set forth in Section 8.1 — Definitions, Section 8.2 — General Requirements and Specifications,Paragraphs 1 and 2 and Section 8.4—Requirements for Off-Street Loading and Unloading,Paragraph 4, of Reference No. 1 shall apply. 4.5.2 REQUIREMENTS: A. For Clubhouse with Restaurant and Cocktail Lounge—One parking space for each four seats and one parking space for every four persons employed or intended to be employed. B. For Recreational Facilities — One parking space for each two anticipated participants. Fifty percent (50%) of the spaces required for recreational facilities may be credited to the parking requirement of A above. 4.6 PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS Before the issuance of a building permit for construction within Tract B,the final plans for each stage of the proposed construction shall receive the approval of the County Planning Director. Page 14 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words strusk4hreugh are deletions. H;12012\201210I\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx SECTION V TRACT A: SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 5.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan and regulations for the area designated as Tract C—Single-Family Residential,on the Plot Plan of Development, Exhibit"E". 5.2 MAXIMUM DENSITY A maximum of 93 residential units may be constructed in Tract"C". 5.3 DEVELOPMENT PLAN Tract C, Single-Family Residential shall be developed on the basis of a single condominium made up of individual single family parcels. Plans for Tract C or parts thereof shall clearly indicate the location, area and dimensions of the respective single family parcels. 5.4 USES PERMITTED No building or structure,or part thereof,shall be erected, altered or used,or land or water used,in whole or in part, for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: Single-Family Residences B. Accessory Uses: 1.) Customary accessory uses and structures,including private garage. 5.5 REGULATIONS 5.5.1 GENERAL: All yards, set-backs, etc., shall be understood to be in relation to the Tract boundaries and individual parcel boundaries. 5.5.2 MINIMUM LOT AREA: 10,000 square feet. 5.5.3 MAXIMUM PARCEL COVERAGE: The maximum parcel coverage of living area shall be 25%. 5.5.4 MINIMUM LOT WIDTH: A. Corner Lots— 100 feet average between front and rear lot lines. Page 15 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words shvelethreugh are deletions. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendrnent\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx B. Interior Lots—85 feet average between front and rear lot lines. 5.5.5 MINIMUM YARDS: A. Front Yard—35 feet. B. Side Yard—One story, 10 feet;two story— 15 feet. C. Rear Yard—20 feet. A residential pool or patio, which is screen enclosed, or open or one or more sides for use in residential units, and which is incidental of that of the main building, rear yard setback may be reduced to 15 feet. D. On lots which front on more than one street, the yard opposite the front yard with the least frontage shall be considered a rear yard for setback purposes. 5.5.6 MINIMUM FLOOR AREA: A. One Story— 1,200 square feet B. Two Story— 1,500 square feet 5.5.7 MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 30 feet above grade. 5.6 OFF-STREET PARKING REQUIREMENTS Two spaces, at least one of which shall be located within the permitted building area, and in no event shall a space be located in a side yard setback. 5.7 PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS Final plans depicting Tract and individual parcel boundaries, easements, and other information as required shall be approved by the County Planning Director. Page 16 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words stiuek-thratugh are deletions. H:\2012\2012101\V T\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naplcs Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx SECTION VI TRACT D: COMMONS AREA"I"DEVELOPMENT 6.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan and regulations for the area designated as Tract D, Commons Area"I", on the Plot Plan of Development,Exhibit 6.2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. The primary function and purpose of this Tract shall be to provide an aesthetically pleasing open area for the common use and service of all occupants and members of all other Tracts within the project limits, and to provide for the flood relief and drainage of the total project. B. Except in areas to be used for water impoundment, and accessory use areas, all natural trees and other vegetation as practicable shall be protected and preserved. All landscaping and earthwork to be performed in the Tract shall be of high quality and in keeping with the primary goals set for this area. 6.3 USES PERMITTED The building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used, or land or water used in whole or in part,for other than the following: A. Principal Uses: 1.) Open Spaces. 2.) Lakes and other functional facilities or uses to serve for the flood relief and drainage of project improved areas. B. Accessory Uses: 1.) A maximum of four total acres, in whole or in parts, may be used for improved recreational facilities such as playgrounds, putting greens, or other similar recreational facilities. 2.) Small buildings,enclosures,or other structures constructed for purposes of maintenance,recreation,or shelter. Page 17 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words are deletions. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013),docx 3.) Small docks,piers or other such facilities constructed for purposes of lake recreation for all project occupants or members. 4.) Improved or unimproved pedestrian and bicycle paths or other similar facilities constructed for purposes of access to or passage through the Commons Area. 6,4 REGULATIONS 6.4.1 GENERAL: A. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosure of structures,location of all improved facilities, and location and treatment of buffer areas. B. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and neighboring properties from direct glare or other interference. 6.4.2 MAXIMUM HEIGHT: 15 feet. 6.5 PLAN APPROVAL REOUIREMENTS Final plans for all improvements and facilities to be constructed in Tract D shall receive the prior approval of the County Planning Director. Final plans for clearing, grading, earthwork, and utility construction may be approved by the County Planning Director as part of the respective Project Phase Final plans as provided for in Section II. • Page 18 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words slr elf-Hveu8h are deletions. H:\201212012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPCWaples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx SECTION VII TRACT E: COMMONS AREA"P"DEVELOPMENT 7.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the development plan and regulation for the area designated as Tract E,Commons Area"P",of the Plot Plan of Development,Exhibit 7.2 DEVELOPMENT PLAN A. The primary function and purpose of this Tract shall be to provide an area for entrance and access to the project, street access to the respective project land-use Tracts,utility corridors,and to provide semi-public access for such services as fire protection, policing, solid waste collection, and maintenance and operation of utilities. B. This Tract shall be developed with such landscaping, screening, and other decorum to provide a pleasing appearance and suitable buffer between the project and adjacent lands. 7.3 USES PERMITTED No building or structure, or part thereof, shall be erected, altered or used,or land or water used,in whole or in part,for other than the following: A. Streets and Utilities B. Landscaping,screens,and decorative walls, gates and monuments. C. Entrance gatehouse. 7.4 REGULATIONS 7.4.1 GENERAL: A. Overall site design shall be harmonious in terms of landscaping, enclosures of structures,location of streets and treatment of buffer areas. B. Lighting facilities shall be arranged in a manner which will protect roadways and neighboring properties from direct glare and other interference. 7.4.2 OTHER: The height,location and design of all facilities and improvements in this Tract shall be subject to the approval of the County Planning Director. Page 19 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words stfuek4hreugh are deletions, H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx 7.5 PLAN APPROVAL REQUIREMENTS Final and complete plans for all structures, landscaping or other facilities that can readily be seen shall receive the approval of the County Planning Director. Final plans for clearing, grading, earthwork and utility construction may be approved by the County Planning Director as part of the respective Project Phase final plans as provided for in Section II. Page 20 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words stfuel€411Fetigh are deletions. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Am endment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx SECTION VIII OWNERSHIP,OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE 8.1 GENERAL The entire complex shall be subject to condominium ownership,with the current owner, or a designated development corporation, responsible for the installation of improvements and the maintenance of common areas until such areas are turned over to the appropriate Condominium Associations. 8,2 OWNERSHIP OF COMMON AREAS Common Areas "P" and "I" shall be owned by the Naples Bath and Tennis Club Condominium Association. The assets of this association shall be owned by "Unit Condominium Association",defined as follows: A Unit-Condominium Association is that entity that holds title to ownership of an individual parcel of land within the entire parcel. Such individual parcels of land are labeled"Multi-Family Parcels A through"I","Single- Family Parcels", and "Club"on the PUD Land Use Plan. Ownership of assets of"Unit- Condominium Associations" may be either in undivided 1/nth interest, where "n" shall not exceed the number of dwelling units per respective parcel, as indicated in Section III of the PUD proposal,or by a single developing entity or by a Club operating entity,in the case of the Club facilities. 8,3 CONDITIONS The following conditions will prevail, as appropriate: A. INITIAL PHASE: During construction of Club facilities and condominium units, The current owner, or its designated development corporation shall construct roads, install utilities, install lakes, and build club and apartment buildings, shall form and fund condominium associations both on individual multi-family parcels and the Naples Bath and Tennis Club Condominium Association. It shall be the responsibility of the Naples Bath and Tennis Club Condominium Association to assume responsibility for the maintenance of the Commons Areas "P" and "I" immediately upon completion of construction of any phase of these improvements.The Naples Bath and Tennis Club Condominium Association shall also assume responsibility for the maintenance of all lake areas in the complex. The current owner and/or its designated development corporation shall completely fund the operation of the Naples Bath and Tennis Club Condominium Association until such time as an individual unit condominium parcel is completely developed and its individual unit-condominium association is formed and turned over to the apartment or lot owners. At that time, the unit- Page 21 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words ugh are deletions, H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL•2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx condominium association shall assume its pro-rata proportion of the maintenance costs of the Commons Areas "P" and `T'. Said association will at all times maintain roads, landscaping and other amenities in an aesthetically pleasing orderly fashion. Such procedures shall continue until the entire parcel is developed and all unit-condominium associations formed. B. FINAL PHASE: Upon completion of project. When all unit-condominium associations shall have been formed, and control shall have been turned over to said associations, the funding of the Naples Bath and Tennis Club Condominium Association shall be the sole responsibility of the unit-associations. It is further understood that prior to occupancy within a parcel,the commons area in the entire project phase as defined in Section 2.5 A, shall be completed. In addition,prior to the occupancy of any condominium unit, the Recreation Club facilities - Project Phase 1 as defined in Section 2.5 A,shall be substantially completed. 8,4 OWNERSHIP STRUCTURE Ownership structure of the various condominium parcels is depicted in Appendix B. Page 22 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words struck-through are deletions. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC■ aples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx SECTION IX DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS 9.1 PURPOSE The purpose of this Section is to set forth the standards for the development of the project. 9.2 GENERAL All facilities shall be constructed in strict accordance with the Development Plan and all applicable state and local laws, codes and regulations. Except where specifically noted or stated otherwise,the standards and specifications of Reference Nos. 1 and 2 shall apply to this project. 9.3 CONCEPTUAL DESIGN PLAN A. Exhibit "F. Conceptual Plan of Development, illustrates the existing site elevations superimposed upon the Plot Plan, existing drainage and other facilities of adjacent lands, the proposed utility corridors, the proposed drainage system, and certain base conceptual design criteria and templates for the project. Also illustrated on the Exhibit are the tentative development phases and the location of certain temporal facilities. B. Except for such definitive facilities and demarcations as street locations, Tract boundaries, etc., the design criteria and system design illustrated on Exhibit "F" and stated herein shall be understood as flexible so that the final design may best satisfy the project,the neighborhood and the general local environment. C. All necessary easements, dedications, or other instruments shall be granted to insure the continued operation and maintenance of all service utilities and all areas in the project. 9.4 PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PHASING The tentative development phasing and sequence is illustrated in Exhibit "F". The proposed construction phases shall individually comply with the standards set forth and the resulting partially complete project shall adequately serve its occupants and members and will not cause a general public problem. Such measures as the construction of cul-de- sacs at street ends, screens, signs, landscaping, erosion control and other similar-in- function facilities shall be taken to accomplish the above set forth objective. All signs shall be printed and displayed in accordance with Collier County Ordinance. Page 23 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words stook tlwoegh are deletions. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPCWaples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PG2013.0000175(1-7-2013).docx 9.5 CLEARING,GRADING,EARTHWORK AND SITE DRAINAGE All clearing,grading,earthwork, and site drainage work shall be performed in accordance with good engineering practice, in accordance with all applicable state and local codes, and in such a matter that will not create a public problem. Conceptual minimum criteria for lake construction and project elevations are set forth in Exhibit"F". 9,6 STREET CONSTRUCTION All street design and construction shall meet or exceed the minimum Collier County standards as set forth in Reference No. 2. A conceptual street and yard design template with minimum elevation criteria is illustrated in Exhibit"F". 9.7 CORRIDORS FOR UNDERGROUND UTILITIES In addition to serving the purposes of common entrance and access, Commons Area"P" shall serve and be so dedicated to serve as a corridor for underground utilities such as power, telephone, TV cable, wastewater collection and transport,water distribution lines and other similar utilities necessary for the service of the project. 9,8 WASTEWATER COLLECTION,TRANSPORT AND DISPOSAL All project areas shall be served by a central wastewater collection system. Until such time that the site is served by Collier County Water-Sewer District B,a temporary on-site system, of approved location, shall serve to provide wastewater treatment and disposal for the project. Immediately upon the availability of District wastewater service to the site, the temporary wastewater treatment and disposal system shall be dismantled and connection shall be made with the District system. 9.9 WATER SUPPLY A central water supply system shall be made available to all areas of the project. The water supply source for the project shall be the City of Naples system or other area-wide system made available to the project site via Water-Sewer District B. 9.10 SOLID WASTE DISPOSAL Such arrangements and agreements as necessary shall be made with an approved solid waste disposal service to provide for solid waste collection service to all areas of the project. 9.11 OTHER UTILITIES Telephone, power, and TV cable service shall be made available to all residential and club use areas.All such utility lines shall be installed underground. Page 24 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words straek eugh arc deletions. H;\20I2\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(I-7-2013).docx 9.12 TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENTS Should there be operational deficiencies at the intersections of Pine Ridge and Airport- Pulling Roads at the time of application for site development plan for transient lodging units for Tract B, then the developer shall pay its fair share of the cost of any transportation or transportation related improvements for the transient lodging units, such as,but not limited to,contribution toward an intelligent management system/SCOOT. Page 25 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words seuelethrough are deletions, H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx REFERENCES 1. "Collier County Zoning Regulations", October, 1968.As revised through December 1972 2. • "Collier County Subdivision Regualtions", Adley Associates,Inc.,April, 1967. 3. "Application for Public Hearing",Planning Department. Collier County,Florida.Naples Bath and Tennis Club,Ltd. Application filed February 23, 1973 for Public Hearing on March 22, 1973. Page 26 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words e#aek through are deletions. H:\2012\2012101\WP1PUD Amendment\CCPC'Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013-0000175(1-7-2013).docx APPENDIX A PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT SCHEDULE PROJECT PHASE NO. LOCATION DATE 1. Southeast 1/4 June 1973 2. Southwest 1/4 January 1975 3. Northwest 1/4 June 1976 4. Northeast 1/4 January 1978 Page 27 of 27 Words underlined are additions;words are deletions. H:\201212012101\WP\PUD Amcndment\CCPC\Naples Bath and Tennis Club PUDA PL-2013.0000175(1-7-2013).doex • _ C > > d p H i'.p ;• 1 � t/� 2 Q . 0. LL d V G S ` ,, ` W O .v. O • :�i c p t`z Q t �f_ ' • o U 0 : . ::, via,,., U') j . U _ H ";•r Q a. V I ' a0s lLV? ItOO p ;R • .•+ ;• . ' • `f, JE- � ZD L3..7 ,°x . 4Q ZJ � o :r,., : • .. I. . '1. yea , ri•8tj,' 4_� 'tH' rr;6• rt4 s �t .t» Fr+ .t,1;,1 .•, •..:•.. [ t1t •i k ,i 4 ,,ka,y.• 6k,, • q..,?W iri, t i' rrr y.7. !■r' .,?s r i. _..__.._ . 'r� 7 r : S I • MI I ' C' :: • • i• E III IB I TS • . n`. • r, • • • j r .. • ;r '1 . I ,. • • 17 yy 4•M f :r'. • . •:• 4. . . •• 144,4.4 ,. ;• v• . • ,.. a r, i-'t,-, 4 '•r ? ° 'yip i. •y(, pit •�- 1 4 i 4'.'.... •' .• 'y' .i::;- '1 at ra.• • M ( ? 7 rn 5 1 . _ Y C1R.. . ::' , i • i JL) ly Y.tip y r :5: {74, } "" .h ' .Y to J ie,, ,, : ....r •. �i , •Q. 1 Na .� .,..,. �, � k . ♦ .. .. E t'1 .,�Atli',Ze'IT■ ' 1 f. -. :�M rt.'4s 4,,,,f '° y,•1 '.20'.7+, 1«., . 4r L i.•. . .}Y��, r • s - �. . c. ev\T1--1 bkTENNIS • CLUB ,''. 1.00 •0141.0 OM DOtktVMD,N./SIRS 1IM/ '1.a••± NW/ Saw/Mial Nrrial y� /�• February 23, 1973 ` Collier County Commissfon • • Collier County Court Nouse • t' East Naples, Florid. 33940 r • `• Gentlemen! , This will authorize John T. Conroy, Jr, to act on behaif of the 1. • ownership group, Naples Bath i Tennis Club, Ltd', in tubmitting •• a petition for public hearing for KID zoning on the property we currently own in Section 14, Township 415, Range Z5C, Collier ,4 • ..:11 County, Florida, • xj • `..4 Sincerely, - .„ 4a49111/2/1: 1,14,4-e? % A Willis M, McFarlane fl General Partner • • •1 WP11C F i J v • .'M • ', drtl • +`,>•:• .� t • • h .,{. •' v , •j • 2. . / • . • %• ' rS r, i et. 4. ( l,40•'S • 4:14• r .1', �• • C1 YZ ;%: 1F I d ,x , Iv c,, / ; »::41 . 'V;q•• ;•¢ k∎I'.'' .'1,•«f '' •r • r'� ' U li pav'' � u� •^• . 1`.5 o f i L 1.,;.�'�F' .4j •� 4, , {4 . .+ ;••P . t5l L.•� i r • . r ♦ f �f .v •• it • ro :f •1'4 r 117r^. t a ,, .6.0.4.6.0.4�. pi,( Jk I =ail ft1ft,f� �js • . .. A to'N 1 �OY TP17i!'/rtb ••.Nli0g1 • - 1.M N, .,tr.1 ...., W► Hl.• of tlw Orr. f .►L N 11,41 W rn1 1 M 1 11 iY G. ifi r��,"Li' �.�wtt.« «I YA..(yy. tf£.t }t},�� 14"4 :14,h' . M W w f. .� 1.4 w Yr..17,r NIN,..rtlotil 111 1 .':"'MI/ e� t,•/r,tr 1 1 4$li••54104.44-1/111.•tM ••* .. '� fl t 1i1-•.p.f'4t(l'M1M'r t.ii w lwutt, r' t • 1 ..::.. ,. Iiiitt M sum fN IM 4044.•1 774,, • I AN1q N M/M�f•.+1i./t/+M tb�.40.4 4.1)N I •1 ' ti.w I.•If�Ur� IIIN tMK.11+t.1.117, _ ..• . .. 74011•MM 1t f. 4, 1..d.. Yt rtl •,Y•l.. II / 1 / f.999999999999999 Y, ... M.fi.•G 1. ,7►• • I '4,:vt�r ..1.104 c.d .v ►.,14,r;li/1N•' t rKMM't.'•~�7�NNM/if,1.4.1tr 14,!!11:4011', . a tails c..,117,4154401, 1 .w...NI 17154.40.1.17111y.•11,•t1.Ml 100•04 u••M•M►t7. 1 •••., 1 r 11t„M 1.G.p. •. , • • s 1 t f, 1 ,e ! ��.�� fM d.1,1..1 rf.N11.•i�llf..1, 41 .d ,t •y �I I. ...a st+l;r rtaG1 11».u. 1 4 3 n.,.a f l , �.., . ,•. i iri•ft or Y11.7,1. • .y+ 1 Y:/ft 1:114'4:i::/N Nt...4,►1f1f.M,.401047 4.01 'f Nip•.uw1..3 .d C...1 ....1 rMw 1t 1111.11 140....1 r►•t.w. 7•f►..tM pMY 4,IYM/A t t .'; 4A,pr...lM..4►M$N,111.711. 415440.!11.)71,7 Y ►07..1 • . N M ti.N••M M.1.•.17 II .•Y,....1.A 1M l.t /M f'••1Nh h.1. 1M•.awIN/•1 toter.of G.1 M•N. ...4 .:171:,,:,21..21,..t/174:14:;,.1 1.1A..w.p W ' . .:l � .1 ' . . jj ' :44 ,,i p,-!404.11•1 t • i / I • .. }_ • • .. a 1 . •. -. • , ;' f • • Vii, ,( '' ' 1 yh q � 1• o 1 • •,y��pt' I, :V'}i,r.N-ii• 1'M' „ '•.Iti•} 'Y.'i. • :. :. 5 . . WW a a • U1-i M E 4a - r_ i'J' �d F�'a - a2 4$ K a • s5Xa 0 nrQV' Ml b hi�iI •e 7 R N . ag7 1n agi' FN let: OMg 8 g4 E ' rdnwif3 : r7 4 O .1{� Y? m pp W']W m < U . 1ii 4 _ U< '1 35 8 ` . � T. 1 tl Y Z nny&� ~a m c) o w 'i Y 44a ;i1ffii 1 : 2 a 2 a� A c ..l _J O- t V `c ic 6 $ i Q �{ 11 a O. J •1. ViYV 1NO11NOi ..___„...._,....----------.1 ladal �r\liiV y tl1 IJ —. L► -n({1�_ , 'r.-.^::•• ••.--'1.« 'dF �. q'+ .\ 1';" 1 k. N0 x I C 1 H �y1 . It • \ g'i 5 4). J ��. • 1 J u. • ��'/,'1W( �1 1 Y._• _ Z 9 -3 o Ed - r, - ---\ p wk N __ r w YA /� 1V / j I 1 _,,, ) 1; 51! ' p a�ll� 0�{1 J` '� C Z it �r. 'p ` - H k •(tl '{JI �` 1 1 VI 3 1 �S"�,r�lt, 1 -�1 '''4.)11° F o I '��4: 'aid 011.^ flD V�- 11�� ' uV t1' '�1Y11011�ilpli ��dr I �p 1 I 1VMOWOOV q/WI WIWWi"_/_,(/� _, pJ xlW wleeoi a+>wt .I''• p (�' 1 r—t Q' i ' , 1 1 ,,e,-\''.----'.. -' . 'o.,.. • ; . ,,,c,,...) AI I ' -fi it F t`' 1 W ip { LLNia1tea.11161- 1011 ;YI Y L ' •A ' u N U kg .I \.: \'1V1L301 1A cH TALI / - �3 — _ .� 1.334{Yii Nl '--1NV11 ' .d„ 1/31IY 6NO141103 —3 10v1:11 . • I ■ 1 1114 ;::;:;;:.: N �: ' :.1.:::::::::.:1:1....4 • .• 0 1-. 5 M '� ;;:. .•;• ;•:•••••••.•. Vi'::::::*:::::;::::::::::;::.: . a . 4 14:41 : ; N i,• .:41.:•::.:.:•:•.:.1.:.:.::.:.:.: + . < !� ^O O' 0.;;;;:::::* ml :':• ; ;1.14: . m= No 4 Y6 C----- 1 111..1 .1i1•. 11414. .. .;;•.;; ; ••:•• \ :•:,...I ;; ; ' ;;: 11.4 , 4 : ''•':4 '44' :: :• ::-0'''4 :;44 • •'.; ;••.• g.•.'g� • �: bo a N>� I I •� :a:+ •a� ;: :• • i c WW ;; §" '° = t L•dii: Q' 444 W 4• Q�aJ Q :.:killill:ii: .-. li::;•. .•.•;;4414. .•.� ;.;•;;;.;••r .••4.4:•4•.':':'.; '.•'•••. :.:::::::::::4:::.: :•:•••:;:;: U::.':1:•:4::::::: •44'•44' ••• • 4•:444• 4444 ''• ''•' •444' 4'4*4.4.!. .4.4.4 •'•'••••4•,•4'••••, @g,4• • 44••1.4• , • ■ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . `\ W . . . . 1 . . . . . . . Q mcn = Z 7;cs y�W� ( VryPO m = �g x �� na8�� hHG L Y Z • ��� W��O �rF-F� � HJI d €.. wgawwff § n h i!l 1i1 _ 3 O °ggt$r�}rurpmp m m a Z 8 8 o'o�a - 6= ca1!W6gl�nd •`6 §4. 'o LLJ LLB Wy=�Vp°x:- 4's'" % 666YW! b z w ®O 1 �p2ZU 31- '_54�W����Wi W1U�i7l.iu 2 J rr = Summary of Neighborhood Information Meeting for Naples Bath and Tennis PUDA Petition: PUDA-PL20130000175:Naples Bath&Tennis Club Date: Tuesday November 19, 2013 Time: Commenced at 5:35 PM. Concluded at 7:05 PM Location: Sanchez-Casal Clubhouse,Meeting Room,4995 Airport Pulling Road N.,FF 34105 Attendance: The meeting was conducted by Bob Mulhere, FAICP, of Hole Montes, on Behalf of the applicant Emilio Sanchez. Emilio Sanchez and Marl Leonardi (Architect) were also in attendance. Kay Deselem, AICP was in attendance from Collier County staff. Inc. Andy Zuckerman, Steve Zuckerman and Ryan Zuckerman were in attendance as well. Approximately 93 members of the public,primarily, if no entirely, residents of Naples Bath and Tennis, were in attendance. Summary: Mr. Mulhere summarized the PUD Amendment process, noted the possible hearing dates for this petition, followed by a summary of the project utilizing an aerial photo and other exhibits. Mr. Mulhere listed the elements of the PUD amendment, including: • Providing for one (1) single-family home as a permitted use within Section 4.3 of the PUD Tract B—Recreation Club Development. • Providing setbacks for the single-family home(within Section 4.4.2 of the PUD). • Increasing the maximum allowed density by one unit, from 516 to 517 dwelling units, in PUD Section 2.4. • Clarification that sports instructional schools and camps, limited to a tennis academy, is a permitted use in Tract B Recreational Club Development. • Adding a private school as an accessory use to sports instructional school (tennis academy). • Providing a new Exhibit E-1, Location of Single-Family Home within Tract B—Recreation Club Development Tract. Mr. Leonardi briefly described the single family home design, and then Emilio Sanchez spoke regarding his desires and long range business objectives. Questions were then taken from the audience with responses from Mr. Mulhere, Mr. Leonardi or Mr. Sanchez. No one spoke in opposition to the project and most spoke overwhelmingly in support. A number of questions were asked and answered with one answer outstanding (see attached). That question dealt with whether or not the single family home parcel should be included in the adjacent home owners association. It was agree that this issue would be research and a response provided as quickly as possible. Prepared by Robert J.Mulhere, FAICP on November 20,2013 G:\CDES Planning Services\Current\DESELEM\PUD RezonesNaples Bath and Tennis Club,PUDA-PL20130000175\NIM Summary 11- 20-13.docx NAPLES BATH AND TENNIS NIM NOVEMBER 19,2013 Q&A Question #1: I don't understand exactly where the house is going to be in relation to the clubhouse. Answer (Bob Mulhere): Look at the exhibit, drawing. This is the exact same area except that it's a photograph. This is the pool. This is the clubhouse. It's not shown on there but this is Clubhouse Drive. You will use the parking this way or maybe this way. This driveway is right across from closest access to the parking by the clubhouse. Question #2: I'm H. McDonald and I am full-time resident and have been a property owner here for 30 years. Most of us agree with Emilio that this is a simpatico community. It's lovely in its setting and is underestimated by the rest of Collier County community. But I have lived through the wars here and if I am not mistaken Emilio is the fifth owner of this enterprise. The previous four owners came in with the best of intentions, but all four failed financially. How can Emilio succeed in making this enterprise financially viable sufficiently that you are willing to move your whole family here and build a home and stay? I have to question what are you going to do to break the precedence of the previous four failures? Answer (Emilio Sanchez): The previous owners didn't have our experience. We have done the same type of facility in Spain. There are different types of clubs but here are success is that we are both a club and tennis academy. The same as in Barcelona where we have kids from all over the world and 660 members as well. It's expensive to make a tennis club viable. In other cities they keep putting down tennis courts, gyms, spas but we know what we are doing. We have the patience. We know this is the perfect place to set up both things. We hope it can make it happen again here. The people who are coming have a very high name. We have pros coming to train. Our students are starting to win tournaments, nationals. We hope that 2014 we will not be in any red numbers. This year we lose money but we are willing to put in the time. That is why I am here, making decisions. The market here is not easy, but that's why we have to make difficult decisions. We make a lot of improvements. This year we have 29 (people) working that's double from last year. We now have 24 courts with lights. A lot things we have improved, the pool, etc. We know how to run the operations and we hope it's going to work and we are trying. Was there a second question? Question#3: Can you make it financially viable? Answer(Emilio Sanchez): We hope so. Answer (Bob Mulhere): I wanted to add that there are some things we have no control over. Right now in Naples the economy is getting stronger. What did the old coach say? Success is the meeting of preparation and opportunity. Preparation is over there. Opportunity is in this community. It's a place where people what to go, to live and yeah, the economy has been a real problem for the past 5 or 6 years, but it's getting better but I think now is the right time and we can hope that someone wants to work hard enough to make it work. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\NIM\Naples Bath and Tennis NIM-Q&A.docx Question 4: I have two questions. Several years ago there was a PUT) approved for hotel with some sort of residence and could this negate that? Question 5: The second question is about the Tennis Academy and school -Could you elaborate and down the road could there be a Tennis Academy school? Answer (Bob Mulhere): These are both good questions. The first question, we can turn to Kay for the history. No, we are not proposing to change anything that was previously approved. Yes, it was in 2010 that an amendment allowed for a hotel. There were battles over that over the years. Hundreds of people at the BCC meetings. We are not intending to develop that but we did not change any of that. Remember,this started out as one single-family home. And it could have been as simple as that, but we did limit our changes re lands within the Recreational Club Facilities Tract. Your other question is also very good. I'm paraphrasing: how have we limited the school so that it is truly ancillary to the Tennis Academy? We have limited it at this point to a maximum of 100 students. We have said in there - these are terms used in planning and zoning. You have a principal use. The principal use is the Recreational and Instructional School Tennis Academy. And you have ancillary uses which are only permitted in conjunction with a principal use. You cannot have a freestanding school or a charter school. You can only have the school if you have the instructional or sports school or tennis academy. So with the Academy, you can have the school. Without the Academy, the school is not permitted. You couldn't build a charter school and suddenly you have bunch of buses. We have limited the scope pretty small —Emilio maybe wanted a higher number because he was thinking bigger in number of students but we thought if things go well and we need some more, we can always come back and talk to you again. That might be 10 years from now. I don't know. Question 6: We were going down a dead end street. This place would be deserted, falling apart, weeds and here we have a man that wants to come in and to build us back and he wants to live here which shows a stronger commitment to this business. Why anyone would want to go in the direction you were going which was nowhere. We are playing tennis here. We are enjoying the community. It's going to be beautiful again. This would be an eyesore. There would be rats running around in the tall weeds... who know? Answer (Bob Mulhere): I thought the same way. It's a win-win. It's a win-win. (Applause). I wanted to mention something. If you are interested in supporting this - I don't have the public hearing dates yet. We have to work through another few weeks of review with staff. Most likely, our public hearing dates,they could be with Planning Commission in January and then the Board of County Commissioners in March. They are not firm yet, but it's possible in this time frame. We will keep you posted to let you know. If you want to write a letter in support—that's helpful. If you want to show up at the hearing in support — that's helpful. I just want to offer that. It's easy to attract people who are opposed to something. It's harder to get people to stand up and support something. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\NIM\Naples Bath and Tennis NIM-Q&A.docx Question 6: Can you tell me the legalities of having one home on 160 square acres that are 10 condominium associations? He will get title to that land but he will not be involved in the condominium association? Can't condominium association just annex his home into an association? Answer (Bob Muthere): I don't think annex is the correct word. I'm not a lawyer but T will tell you what I think. The question was what are the legal ramifications of creating one lot with a single-family home that will be owned by Emilio. We have had it surveyed. What is it? 1.14 acres. It's a little bigger than an acre. It is not part of one of the ten associations and then there's a president's council. It's not part of the zoning. It becomes a civil or private matter between the landowner the rest of you. There might be a benefit for that. There are commons areas that surround this lot which Chip takes care of. This would not change. Emilio is responsible for his own parcel. If you are concerned about basic dues to the associations. I'm sure that is something that you guys can discuss moving forward. We take it one step at a time. This zoning is ... (interrupted). Question 7: Because what if he doesn't want to live here anymore in 15 years? Can that house be sold separate and apart from the Recreational from Tract B? Answer (Bob Mulhere): It could be. It would have to be replotted. That's why we made the parcel big enough so that it could stand on its own. Question 8: All of the homes in the home owner or condo associations answer to the rules and the documents of the condominium associations and we will have one house that does not. It will be interesting to explore legally how that will work. Answer (Bob Mulhere): That's a good point. I will have to talk to a legal mind and get an answer. It could perhaps become part of this association right here. This would make a sense. It's a very good question and we will get back with you. Question 9: I'm confused because this shows five different structures and you keep talking about a single-family home. It has a two-car garage. Answer (Bob Mulhere): It's a single-family home. This is parking. This is a garage. This is a detached guest house. In Collier County if you have more than one acre, you can have a guest house but it is restricted. It can't be bigger than 40% of the principal structure. Also, it can only be used for guests, in-laws.Mark,do you want to talk about that?These are all part of the single- family home. Answer (Mark Leonardi, Architect): Yes, they are. It's a couple of buildings. You have the guest house on one side, the garage right next to it and there's a bedroom here and this is a living space, so you have living,kitchen, dining, lanai,outdoor space associated with that,pool and this is the master bedroom right there. It looks big on that site. But, it's one-story. It's spread out to take advantage of site lines. H:\2012\201210I\WP\PUD Amendment\NIM\Naples Bath and Tennis NIM-Q&A.docx Question 10: Emilio want to live on the property and that's seems like a very nice idea but this is a property with 516 residences. I suspect that everyone in this room owns one of those residences. Why couldn't Emilio own one of those residences rather than put a single-family home on a piece of property that was never intended to have a single-family home and introduce all these other problems? Why do we have to change the PUD so that this house can be built on property that wasn't intended for a home when there are 516? [Groans from people] Answer(Bob Mulhere): That's alright. I can answer. What is your name, Sir? Jay, I don't know that we are creating problems. Certainly, he's having some problems because he's spending all this money to go through this process. Having said that, at the time that Emilio thought about this, there were a couple things. There really wasn't a site that was suitable and he didn't want to buy an existing structure—he wanted to design and build it from scratch. And, there's probably more available now, but we've been at this for awhile. He's now made an investment in the architecture and the zoning process. Again, we think it's an asset. It's a choice. You are always free to try to amend a PUD. There's no prohibition in trying. Obviously, if we don't satisfy the majority of the people, we are going to be dead in the water when we go to the Planning and Board of Commissioners. If we do it in a way that is appropriate and compatible with the existing PUD and you support his investment and he supports your investment,then we think it's a win-win situation. We didn't go gangbusters and try to do all kinds of things. In fact, I told him "you have to keep this very, very simple because these folks have already been through a lot" and we have heard the stories over the years. We tried to keep this very, very simple. The other changes only came about because staff wanted some clarifications and we put those in there. [Applause] Attendee: I think we are very fortunate that we have someone who is willing to invest all of this money,time and effort and so on to keep the Club going. [Applause] Attendee: Now, if he bought two houses, tore them down and built from scratch, it would cost him a hell of a lot more than using the land he already owns and putting up the house he wants. If he wants it and is willing to put in all that money, time, and effort and so on, I think we should let him do it. He's entitled to do it. [Applause] Question 11: If you change the usage in the PUD, does it set a precedent that will allow other changes? Answer: (Bob Mulhere) No, if anyone else wants to do this and come back in and spend the same amount of money, but I don't think that's going to happen. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\NIM\Naples Bath and Tennis NIM-Q&Adocx Question 12: One fly in the ointment. Relationship with the market. What happens if they go bankrupt? Answer(Bob Mulhere): That's a good question. I'm going to find out the answer. I don't know if we have to amend the condominium documents or if there can be a voluntary agreement. We have to look at that. I should have thought of that. I can't think of everything. But that's why we have these things.Thank you all again and have great evening. H:\2012\2012101\WP\PUD Amendment\NIM\Naples Bath and Tennis NIM-Q&A.docx Naples Bath & Tennis Club Commons Area do C. Allen Properties 3050 North Horseshoe Drive# 172 Naples, Fl. 34104 239-403-4006 Tel. 239-403-4008 Fax, January 23, 2014 To: Mr. Mark Strain, Chainnan Collier County Planning Commission Naples, Fl, 34112 From: Robin Frederick, President Naples Bath&Tennis Club Commons Area Board of Directors Naples, F1, 34105 RE: Naples Bath & Tennis Club PUD Amendment scheduled for 2/06/14 Mr, Emilio Sanchez Dear Mr. Strain and Commission Members, We are writing you as the representatives of the 516 homeowners at Naples Bath &Tennis Club. We have received this request for the amendment to our PUD. We have discussed this issue in great depth with our homeowners and find overwhelming support of Mr. Sanchez's petition to amend the PUD and join us as our neighbor. We urge the Commission to support this petition at your meeting on February 6,2014. Thank you. Cc: Chairman ) From: BART REILLY [ ] Sent: Tuesday, January 21, 2014 3:31 PM To: StrainMark; HomiakKaren; RosenMike; Ebert Diane; DoyleBrian; ChrzanowskiStan; RomanCharlette Subject: NAPLES BATH AND TENNISPUD AMENDMENT FEBRUARY 6TH 2014 We fully support the PUb amendment scheduled on the 6th of February with respect to the request from Emilio Sanchez. Bart Reilly, Treasurer Commons Board Naples Bath and Tennis. Monica Reilly. 1760 B Bald Eagle brive. Naples Bath and Tennis 34105 239-261-8349 November 19,2013 Mr. Robert J. Mu there,FAICP Hole Montes 950 Encore Way Naples,FL 34110 Dear Mr. Mulhere, We are the owners of 107A Bobolink Way,Naples. We are writing in support of the proposed application to Collier County to amend the Naples Bath and Tennis PUD to construct a single family home within Tract B. This application also clarifies permitted use for the tennis academy and school. Our club and home values were extremely depressed for the past 5 years,due in part to the economy, but due at least as much to poor management,neglect of the tennis,clubhouse,pool,fitness center and grounds in general. Since the time that the Sanchez-Casal organization purchased our club less than two years ago the improvements were immediately apparent. Our courts are in better condition,the pool and hot tub are repaired,the clubhouse is running smoothly and the facility in general is improved. In fact,in the past year,at least 6 homes or condominiums have been purchased by new owners who have joined and support the club. We are pleased that the applicant has chosen a location that will in no way interfere with the current look,traffic flow and general operations of the club. The fact that the owner wants to build a house for himself and his family on the actual grounds of the academy is further evidence of his commitment and desire to continue to improve the quality of the club. Cordially, (? Q Martin J.Gruber Ztti-hre7 W 4r Eleanor C.Gruber AGENDA ITEM 9-C CO er County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION--PLANNING&REGULATION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2014 SUBJECT: PUDA-PL20130001056: BRANDON RPUD PROPERTY OWNER&APPLICANT/AGENT: Contact Purchaser/Applicant: Property Owner: D.R. Horton, Inc. Fullerton Bonita, LLC. 10541 Ben C. Pratt Six Mile Cypress Boulevard, 33 Bloor Street, Suite 100 Suite 401 Fort Myers, Fl 33966 Toronto, Ontario Canada M4W3H1 Agents: Richard D. Yovanovich, Esq. Patrick Vanasse,AICP Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester, P.A. RWA, Inc. 4001 Tamiami Trail North, Suite 300 6610 Willow Park Drive, Suite 200 Naples, FL 34103 Naples,Fl 34109 REQUESTED ACTION: The petitioner is asking the Collier County Planning Commission (CCPC) to consider an application for an amendment to the existing PUD zoned project known as the Brandon RPUD, to allow several changes to the development including changes to the master plan to show a reconfiguration of the entrance road on Veterans Memorial Boulevard, a reconfiguration of required preserves and reconfiguration of development areas. The petitioner is also proposing changes to development standards, revising and proposing additional deviations, and revising development commitments including removal of the affordable housing requirements. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property, consisting of 51.1+/- acres, is located on the east side of Livingston Road and the south side of Veteran's Memorial Boulevard, within Section 13, Township 48 South, Range 25 East, Collier County, Florida. (See location map on the following page) PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 1 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) Ei A � :0 v mu Wo a pp ��� O t1 i t.. F I M v — . �d {.... ....:.. .... .. E di A --Ili,. _ . .:.f. ....„ ,.., Q' —■ mu min �� a 1 31 101 v a 000G z , d gi ( i:ii:::::i:::i;i .l 11111:1:1:1::111:11IN11111::01::::::::::::1!:!:111 llllllllllllllllllllllllllll tt x,,, o 0 0 ME _ o a a:al —1 ; wq /o v N ! 00 o. i 0 Op ..::........... 1112111111 -MOM g =0 000001 (0 i a I° �I OM 1ao.w ` G q _ 9 6$ 5 V 6 8 N 2 J a_ TWOS O1 10N CI D a 4t z 0 Ill y ! 6 011Vnainoo Nr901 I>- 1 R ga wbr gt I- z �- a1 = I. Iwo li n 0.. O O` xwoxux�w .1 ce3lvlsa3lni Q 2 i! {1 .� J d Mn.MUM 3100 SODOM KFMl0 SL.31rl TLTl1N " n a R f p •• z ill ID o _ s 1 11- --h�: .. 2 . : (7 u.....0 _ �r.y as t�0 xsnrn Nrar[ie @ _ B^ ! c2- `8 was wolsJNNl ' NI. , I 117 [ �g ^ i ^E:.S 3 ii t 1 4 10,,,;sir 'iii I ! -11 P. :� i ft" Pe �d r ii g s e 'I! i A ti r'a� _ 2 1 \ I— d i' A1 "..: ns+ ,rea.aua.awo /�y aro1»rTaa . � : (� �` — EXHIBIT C i I, MEDITERRA 42) tgal -....... -11-VETZRANS-- BEMOILL4LBOUIEURD ....... . . --, , ,--- ■ , I 1.: II. 11.1.`1"77— ____L__' —Thi-- .,:,,,,,,,,,6 i 1 i 1 MIXIMILIIIII —I ii., iL twos! , 1;1, r1;1 .„...P.zER ,--------- ' ; •li',' l • r 11 I lap- ,rill SUFFER, 1 ;II I MLA"'. _•-. I 'r "-I I I 'I.I r-•- -1 1 1 I rirjad , I ■ I II■ r , 1 A BUFFER I ,ii I TREATMENT OVERLAY I WI i , 1, er-SPECIAL I / 't I,I,1 i , ,, IV TIC II/1.EN ER TIREATIADyIT i s @ g 1 ■ '',•.,:•,, c - - - ---;i1prd I 1 1 ,r rf/dii/zy, pc.uvr 1 , '' .\• CA) .V dA111113111__ 4raim_ MiCit. WIERCONIEC11011 LAND USE KEY \\ RESIDENTIAL IR) , 400A -SINGLE FAMILY \ '. NO BUFFER REQUIRED ' CiM -TWO FAMILY • 441;;;;`,,,,„ 4 , -7- -SINGLE FAMILY ZERO LIR LINE \,..s. `..•_,..„7,,,,,„1, e....=_-.41,, . k -DUPLEX . •, -MULTIFAMILY ,..„.. A.,g, ,.-■••;, MONA MIS -COMMON AREA 's..,'''''....',..y.'". :—— — -OPEN SPACE 'n n,.. - -WATER MANAGEMENT AREAS ,,,-`,. ;:. ,N,TI". 1 1 I -RECR EADON FACIUTY ' ' 'Z'Z.''''''':' ‘SC■k<;› - 4 'i PROJECT LAND USE ''.■,'"* ..,1,.. .:,\Sc./ I !I i RESIDENTIAL(6) 27.87 AC± . ',1 , ,I LAKES 4.42 ACA N N %..ik: PRESERVE REQUIRED 11.81 ACA PRESERVE PR OVI DED/SHOWN 11.82 AC* \\ I.. — ... . . 7°TAI-NET AC IEW;E 51.10 ACA LEGEND MINIMUM OPEN SPACE(5015) 30.65 AC* DENSITY:204 UNITS/51.1 AC.-398 UNITS PER ACRE EMM PRESERVE AREA EjTZEZI WATER MANAGEMENT AREA RPUD MASTER PLAN NOTES RPM)BOUNDARY 1. THE FACILITIES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ON THIS PUB RIGHT OF WAY MASTER PLAN SHALL BE CONSIDERED CONCEPTUAL 51 NATURE ----• SPECIAL TREATMENT ZONE 2. THE DESIGN.LOCATION,AND CONFIGURATION OF DIE LAND (CD, ZONING CLASSIFICATION! IMPROVEMENTS SHALL BE DEFINED AT EITHER SDP APPROVAL OR CONSTRUCTION PLANS AND PINT APPROVAL II2C LAND USE CLASSIFICATION 3. RESERVED INIERCONNECT1ON MAY MOVE NORTH OR 8011111. R RESIDENTIAL AREA •IF.1.15- MAJOR ACCESS POINTS ,.., & CHANGES PER STAFF ulna. I w a.DATED 9/20/13 N.F.0 M.E. 13 -3,.. RESERVED INTERCONNECTION • Cl-RAISES PER STAFF LETTER,DATED 11/26/13 *VG,M.E.S1/29 E . CLIENT:2013 D.R. HORTON INC. CONSULTING avaliogbzeclug N.T.S. A VI` V IL A *110"6MIPPing R.A.K, TITLE: BRANDON RPUD MASTER PLAN 111110VMsehikeeloxplir103 N~Immo C4.0.11.11 Opp osr-mn PAX11110)06/46711 M.E. mnuareullosuge FluddiColloolseflillblhalm us% .nr, set ritp,.acr BIM MIMI 13 4es 23E Num ,J,,,,,nr,,, SOW 1-- 1 RS ,,,nnN,Vhvvov, Page 5 of 16 Brandon RPUD PUDA-PL20130001056—Rev.12/9/13 Words added are underlined,words deleted are stiltek4hrough PURPOSE/DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The subject property contains a number of undeveloped. The existing Brandon RPUD was approved with Ordinance Number 08-13, recorded on March 20, 2008. The approved ordinance allowed for the development of 204 dwelling units and related accessory uses. This PUDA petition is proposing to retain the same 204 dwelling units. The proposed changes are summarized below(taken from the narrative statement provided in the application and revised during the review of the application): Revisions to Development Master Plan: • Relocate Veteran's Memorial Boulevard entrance further to the east of the development. • Revise the internal roadway to be consistent with South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD)site plan and permit. • Revise required preserve areas to be consistent with SFWMD permit which results in an increase of required preserves from the previously 11.08 acres to a new requirement of 12.04 acres. • Revise the location of potential interconnection to off-site properties to be consistent with SFWMD permits and revised preserve areas. Revisions to Development Commitments: • Remove transportation commitment regarding compensating right of way on Livingston Road that is no longer required due to the current built-out condition of Livingston Road. • Remove transportation commitment for a required interconnection to the Verona Pointe development that is south of the proposed Brandon RPUD. This connection is no longer possible due to the required SFWMD preserve area changes. • Remove the Affordable Housing requirement due to Collier County's current policy that eliminates this requirement because of current/changed housing market conditions. • Remove other commitments due to redundancy to LDC requirements. Revisions to Deviations: • Revision of three previously approved deviations. • The introduction of twelve new deviations. Because this PUD was originally approved using the current PUD document format, the petitioner is providing the proposed changes in a strike thru/underline format, showing the new information in underlined text and showing the text to be removed in a strike thru format. As noted above, the petitioner is seeking approval of 12 new deviations; revision of 3 previously approved deviations for a total of 15 deviations which are discussed later in this report. PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 4 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: The Veteran's Memorial Boulevard ROW, then the Mediterra and Tuscany Reserve developments which both have the zoning designation of Planned Unit Development (PUD). The Mediterra PUD was approved at an overall density of 0.56 units per acre. The Tuscany Reserve PUD was approved at an overall density of 1.73 units per acre. East: Several undeveloped tracts with a zoning designation of Agricultural (A), then an FP&L easement, and then the developed residential project known as Pelican Strand with a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development (PUD), approved with an overall density of 2.09 units per acre. South: The Livingston Road ROW, and several undeveloped tracts with a zoning designation of Agricultural (A), and the developed mixed use Royal Palm Academy that has a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development (PUD), approved at an overall density of 4 units per acre. West: The Livingston Road ROW, and the undeveloped Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples with a zoning designation of Community Facility Plan Unit Development(CFPUD), and several undeveloped tracts with a zoning designation of Agricultural (A), and the undeveloped Della Rosa with a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development (PUD), approved with a base density of 4 units per acres and upon proof of the purchase of 15 TDR credits could qualify for 45 additional units for a potential total of 107 units or approximately 6.95 units per acre. 4' :7* :1444141ittlijPg Subject Property m.I- 4 f enr ti Aerial Photo(subject site depiction is approximate) PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 5 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14,1-21-14) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN(GMP)CONSISTENCY: Future Land Use Element(FLUE): The subject property is designated Urban (Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict) as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) of the County's Growth Management Plan (GMP). The site is also within the Northwest Transportation Concurrency Management Area as identified within the Transportation Element of the Growth Management Plan. Relevant to this petition,the Urban Residential Subdistrict permits residential development (variety of unit types) at a base density of up to four dwelling units per acre, and recreation and open space uses. The proposed Brandon PUD allows a maximum of 204 residential dwelling units on 51.10 acres of land, for an overall density of 3.99 dwelling units per acre. Future Land Use Element Policy 5.4 states: "New developments shall be compatible with, and complementary to the surrounding land uses, as set forth in the Land Development Code (Ordinance 04-41, adopted June 22, 2004 and effective October 18, 2004, as amended) "It is the responsibility of the Zoning Services Section staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety to perform the compatibility analysis. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit "A" RPUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Livingston Road, which is classified as an arterial road in the Transportation Element.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit "A" RPUD Master Plan, depicts a spine road that runs through the entire project from Livingston Road to Veteran's Memorial Boulevard. All internal roads and/or parcels connect to that spine road.] PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 6 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [The Exhibit "A" RPUD Master Plan depicts a reserved interconnection near the southeast corner of the project. However, interconnections with any other abutting properties are not shown. It appears that an interconnection with Della Rosa PUD to the west (undeveloped) would be possible, and that PUD's Master Plan shows a cul-de-sac ending at/near the Brandon PUD property line. It is acknowledged that this petition requests right-of-way deviations so the streets are intended to be private. Nonetheless, the applicant is encouraged to consider revising the PUD Master Plan to depict vehicular and/or non-vehicular bicycle/pedestrian interconnection to the Della Rosa PUD.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The RPUD allows for a variety of DU types. Open space (60% [30.66 acres] required) includes 11.82 acres of preserves,4.42 acres of lakes,recreation facilities,and non-buildable areas of residential lots/parcels. The RPUD provides for sidewalks on both sides of the spine roadway, except only on one side where there is an abutting preserve, and only one side of both cul-de-sacs.] Based on the above analysis, staff finds the request for amending the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD) consistent with the Future Land Use Element of the Growth Management Plan. Nonetheless, the applicant is encouraged to consider revising the PUD Master Plan to depict vehicular and/or non-vehicular (bicycle/pedestrian) interconnection to the Della Rosa PUD. Conservation and Coastal Management Element (CCME): Environmental review staff found this project to be consistent with the Conservation & Coastal Management Element (CCME). The project site consists of 47.2 acres of native vegetation; a minimum of 11.81 (25%) acres of the existing native vegetation shall be placed under preservation and dedicated to Collier County. Transportation Element: The proposed PUD amendment has been found consistent with the applicable policies of the transportation element. ANALYSIS: Staff has completed a comprehensive evaluation of this land use petition including the criteria upon which a recommendation must be based, specifically noted in Land Development Code (LDC) Subsection 10.02.13.B.5, Planning Commission Recommendation (commonly referred to as the "PUD Findings"), and Subsection 10.02.08.F, Nature of Requirements of Planning Commission Report (referred to as "Rezone Findings"), which establish the legal bases to support the CCPC's recommendation. The CCPC uses these same criteria as the bases for their recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners (BCC), who in turn use the criteria to support its action on the rezoning or amendment request. An evaluation relative to these PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 7 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) subsections is discussed below, under the heading "Zoning Services Analysis." In addition, staff offers the following analyses: Environmental Review: Environmental Services staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document to address environmental concerns. The PUD Master Plan provides an 11.81 acre preserve, which meets the minimum requirement. This project does not require Environmental Advisory Council (EAC) review, as this project did not meet the EAC scope of land development project reviews as identified in Section 2-1193 of the Collier County Codes of Laws and Ordinances. Transportation Review: Transportation Division staff has reviewed the petition and the PUD document and Master Plan for right-of-way and access issues and is recommending approval subject to the Transportation Development Commitments contained in Exhibit F of the RPUD Ordinance. Utility Review: This project is located within Collier County Water and Sewer District and Utility staff has requested the petitioner place specific commitments in the PUD; the petitioner has included those commitments as requested. Zoning Services Review: FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new land uses to be compatible with, and complementary to, the surrounding land uses. In reviewing the appropriateness of the requested uses and intensity on the subject site, the compatibility analysis included a review of the subject proposal comparing it to surrounding or nearby properties as to allowed use intensities and densities, development standards (building heights, setbacks, landscape buffers, etc.), building mass, building location and orientation, architectural features, amount and type of open space and location. Zoning staff is of the opinion that this project will be compatible with and complementary to,the surrounding land uses. The development standards contained in the PUD document have not been changed except for revisions shown on the development standards table Exhibit B. The types of uses that would be allowed in this project have not changed. As illustrated in the aerial photograph located on page 2 of the staff report, "the surrounding land use zoning discussion" of this staff report, and the Master Plan, the site is bounded to the east by undeveloped agricultural parcels, an FP&L easement and then the developed residential project known as Pelican Stand with a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development (PUD), that was approved at a overall density of 2.09 units per acre. To the south are several undeveloped agricultural parcels, and then the developed mixed use residential and school campus project known as Royal Palm Academy with a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development(PUD), approved at an overall density of 4 units per acre. To the west are several undeveloped agricultural parcels, and the undeveloped Grace Romanian Baptist Church of Naples with a zoning designation of Community Facility Planned Unit Development (CFPUD), and the undeveloped residential project known as Della Rosa with a zoning designation of Planned Unit Development approved at a base density of 4 units per acres and upon proof of the purchase of 15 TDR credits could qualify for 45 additional units for a potential total of 107 units or approximately 6.95 units per acre. PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 8 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) This project was originally approved with a maximum density of 4 units per acre which will not change with this amendment petition and remains comparable to what has been approved for the surrounding projects. The surrounding PUDs have similar development standards to what is proposed herein, as to minimum setbacks and lot sizes. Exhibit C, master plan for this petition maintains all of the previously approved perimeter landscape buffers except for the proposed deviations below. Deviation Discussion: The petitioner is seeking fifteen deviations from the requirements of the LDC. The deviations are listed in the deviation portion of the PUD. Deviation 1 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01.N which requires a minimum local street right-of-way width of 60 feet, to allow a 50' right-of-way width for the internal streets that includes public utilities. Petitioner's Rationale:The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This proposed deviation is justified because of the small-scale setting of the neighborhood. This addresses concerns that a larger road right-of-way is conducive to higher speeds, and physical design of the broader road right-of-way becomes less articulated and does not relate to the neighborhood scale. A 50 foot right-of-way for a residential street can successfully facilitate movement of the vehicular, pedestrian and bike traffic while accommodating all utility and drainage needs. The 50 foot right-of- way accomplishes traffic calming to provide a safer transportation system within the neighborhood. This dimension for a neighborhood right-of-way accommodates all the standard roadway functions so that the development is compact, the native vegetation is less impacted, and open spaces can be concentrated in areas of the property for enhanced environmental quality. In addition a 50' street right-of-way width was designed and approved through the SFWMD ERP permit, this deviation will ensure that the Brandon RPUD amendment is consistent with the SFWMD permit. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Additionally this deviation was originally approved as part of ordinance 08-13 and the roadway system shown on the master plan remain substantially the same. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 2 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.02.A, which requires construction of five-foot wide sidewalks on both sides of local streets, to allow a single five-foot wide sidewalk on one PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 9 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) side of the internal cul-de-sac road right-of-way and a single five-foot wide sidewalk on the spine road only where there is a preserve adjacent to the right-of-way. The remainder of the spine road will meet LDC Section 6.06.02.A standards. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: Due to the constraints created by the configuration of the project and the requirements of the SFWMD permitting criteria, including the right-of-way cross section adjacent to the preserve areas; the street right-of-way width is constrained in some areas. This deviation will not adversely impact pedestrian mobility for the project, and will reduce impervious areas for better water quality and storm water attenuation, and minimizes impacts to adjacent preserve areas. The private local roadways internal to the development will have relatively low vehicular travel speeds therefore the deviation will not impact public health, safety and welfare. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. It is noted that several other residential PUD's have been approved with similar sidewalk deviations. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 3 seeks relief from LDC Section 6.06.01, which requires tangents for all streets between reverse curves, unless otherwise approved by the County Manager, or his designee, pursuant to LDC Section 10.02.04. to not require tangents between reverse curves on any project streets. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation request is justified because it is consistent with LDC provisions for administrative discursion and the streets within Brandon RPUD are not at a traffic capacity or speed level that requires tangents between reverse curves. Additionally this deviation was approved as part of the original PUD approval with the internal roadway substantially the same. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. Additionally, this deviation was originally approved as part of ordinance 08-13, thereby re-affirming a previous allowance, and the roadway system shown on the master plan remain substantially the same. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation,finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 10 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deviation 4 seeks relief from Code of Laws and Ordinances Administrative Code Section 2- 22.112. which requires excavated areas provide a maximum four to one slope from existing grade to a breakpoint at least 7 feet below the control elevation which equates to 3 feet below documented low water elevation/dry water table. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation request is justified and after discussion with county engineering staff it is permittable. The deviation is also consistent with SFWMD permitting. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved as it is a re-affirmation of an allowance that was made in the 2008 ordinance. However, this deviation is also seeking relief from the Code of Laws and Ordinances and it is important to note that new deviations cannot be sought from this provision because the PUD deviation allowances in the LDC only allow deviation to be sought from provisions within the LDC itself Since this project was previously approved with this provision it seems appropriate for the CCPC to approve this deviation. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations. Deviation 5 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.03.02.C. which permits a maximum height of walls and fences to 6 foot height in residentially zoned districts, to allow walls and fences to a maximum height of 8 foot height along the perimeter of the project and where it abuts public roadways,to allow a 15 foot tall wall/berm combination. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will provide additional visual screening and reduce noise resulting from roadway traffic along Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard The 15 foot high berm-fence-wall combination is requested to provide adewaute buffering and noise attenuation between the project and adjacent properties. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. It is noted that several other residential PUD's have been approved with similar fence-wall-berm deviations. PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 11 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 6 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.4, which requires a 20 foot wide Type"D" landscape buffer along a public right-of-way for developments greater than 15 acres, to allow a 15 foot wide Type "D"buffer in conjunction with the proposed increase height for the perimeter berm/fence combination requested in Deviation 5. Petitioner's Rationale: The petitioner provided the following justification for this deviation: This deviation is requested to allow a buffer that meets the intent of a Type D buffer by utilizing a combination of a berm with a wall that would provide 100 percent opacity and allow more flexible design and layout of buffer elements. Because the resulting buffer will meet or exceed the intent of a Type D buffer the health and welfare of the public and community will not be compromised. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff sees no detrimental effect if this deviation request is approved. The proposed perimeter buffer meets the intent of this provision of the LDC. Staff however recommends that the proposed wall noted in the application, and discussed as part of deviation 5 above,be made part of this landscape buffer deviation if approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h,the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 7 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, which allows temporary signs on residentially zoned properties up to 4 square feet in area or 3 feet in height,to allow a temporary sign or banner up to a maximum of 60 square feet in area. The temporary sign or banner shall be limited to 180 days during season which will be defined as November 1st to April 30th. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow for a banner sign located on the proposed masonry wall along Livingston Road in order to advertise new homes available within the community. The 4 square foot banner sign permitted by the LDC provides minimal visibility and likely will not be seen by vehicles travelling along Livingston Road. Additionally the applicant is requesting that the banner be allowed for up to 180 days per calendar year to allow display throughout the peak winter season for home sales. PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 12 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff finds that the petitioner's deviation and rationale supportable for this project. The proposed deviation is similar to other recently approved zoning petitions. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the limitations suggested above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 8 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two ground signs per entrance to the development, to allow for one ground sign known as a "Boundary Marker" at the property corners for each frontage on Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard. The "boundary markers" will be in addition to the project entrance signs and will be permitted to a maximum height of 10 feet and a sign area of 32 square feet per sign. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow the developer to place signage to increase the community's visibility and better delineate the property from surrounding communities. Due to the property's configuration and frontage on Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Boulevard this deviation will allow the developer to have additional options for signage beyond the code provided entrance signage. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff finds that the petitioner's deviation and rationale supportable for this project. While the proposed boundary markers are in addition to LDC provisions they are similar to other recently approved residential zoning petitions. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the limitations suggested above,fording that,in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3,the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is"justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 9 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6,which permits ground entrance signage only on-site within residential zoning districts,to allow one of two ground entrance signs at the Livingston Road entrance to be located on the County right-of-way remnant triangle piece left over from the constriction of Livingston Road. The off premise sign may be permitted if a right-of-way permit is approved or if the remnant parcel is purchased by the owner of the Brandon RPUD. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow the developer to place a sign on this parcel if the parcel is acquired from the County subsequent to the RPUD amendment or if a right-of- way permit allowing the sign is approved. The configuration of the Brandon RPUD at PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 13 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) the Livingston Road entrance will not allow a sign at the most visible location for north bound traffic. This circumstance is a result of the design of Livingston Road that includes a remnant triangular piece of right-of-way a location restricting the actual development frontage at the north quadrant of the Brandon entrance. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff finds that the petitioner's deviation and rationale supportable for this project. While the proposed deviation represents a request that extends outside the limits of the Brandon RPUD staff notes that the location is within a County owned right-of-way and the required right-of-way permits for the propose sign or property purchase can address location and permitting issues related to entry sign. Access to the project at this location is to a degree problematic with regard to standard sign location criteria,therefore the proposed deviation is supportable given the permitting or purchase related requirements that staff recommends be made part of this deviation if approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the limitations suggested above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 10 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5, which requires on-premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 10 feet from internal property lines, to allow for on-premise directional signs to be setback a minimum of 5 feet from internal property lines. This deviation will not apply to property adjacent to public roadways. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The proposed deviation will allow the development of appropriate directional signs internal to the Brandon RPUD. A unified design theme will be used for all signs throughout the community, thereby ensuring a cohesive appearance and increased aesthetic appeal. All directional signs will meet clear sight distance requirement s consistent with LDC provisions. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff finds that the petitioner's deviation and rationale supportable for this project. The proposed deviation is similar to other recently approved zoning petitions. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the limitations suggested above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." PUDA-PL20 1 30001 056: Brandon RPUD Page 14 of 25 January 15, 2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) Deviation 11 seeks relief from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, which permits two ground signs per entrance to the development with a maximum height of 8 feet and a total sign area of 64 square feet per sign, to allow for two ground signs per project entrance with a maximum height of 10 feet and a sign area of up to 80 square feet per sign allowing for a total sign area of 160 square feet. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: The subject development will be accessed via two roadways with allow relatively high travel speeds, this is especially the case for the Livingston Road access. The applicant is seeking to increase the allowable entrance sign height and area to ensure visibility of the community and the request is similar to other approved residential communities. All of the entrance signs will meet permitting requirements of the LDC including sight triangle standards. . Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff finds that the petitioner's deviation and rationale supportable for this project. The proposed deviation is similar to other recently approved zoning petitions. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the limitations suggested above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 12 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.02.01.A. Table 2.1, which requires a minimum setback line be measured from a road right-of-way easement line to allow the front yard setback to be measured from the back of curb. Front loaded garages shall be setback a minimum of 23 feet from edge of sidewalk or 23 feet from the edge of pavement where no sidewalk is provided. For side loaded garages a parking area of 23 feet in depth shall be provided to avoid parking of a vehicle across a sidewalk or pavement. This does not apply to public road rights of way. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is requested to allow more flexibility in the design and layout of the individual lots while also providing adequate front yard separation from the right-of-way. This deviation will not impact the required driveway dimensions and will accommodate sidewalks as proposed with this zoning petition. Additionally bring structures closer to the roadway in a low speed local roadway setting is consistent with good planning practices highlighted in Objective and Policies related to Smart Growth in the Future Land Use Element of the GMP. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff finds that the petitioner's deviation and rationale supportable for this project. The proposed deviation is similar to other recently approved zoning petitions. PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 15 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the limitations suggested above, fording that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 13 seeks relief from LDC Section 1.08.02, "lot measurement width", to allow a minimum frontage on the internal streets to be 22 feet as measured by the cord method and to permit flag lots. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation has been requested to allow flag lots within the Brandon RPUD in order to efficiently utilize the developable areas in locations affected by the roadway curves. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff finds that the petitioner's deviation and rationale supportable for this project. The proposed deviation is similar to other recently approved zoning petitions, additionally the developable area within this project have been reduced by the revised preserve areas required as part of the approved SFWMD permit which to a degree justify this deviation request. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the limitations suggested above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 14 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.05.J. Slope Table to allow sod as a planting material for 3:1 slopes with a maximum total slope height of 2 feet Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is requested to allow sod as a planting material and to meet the SFWMD permit right-of-way cross section. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff finds that the petitioner's deviation and rationale supportable for this project. The proposed deviation is similar to previous LDC provisions regarding use of sod on slopes. The height limitation proposed should address health, safety and welfare concerns of this LDC provision. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the limitations suggested above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 16 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Deviation 15 seeks relief from LDC Section 4.06.02.C. that requires a 15 foot wide Type `B" landscape buffer between amenity centers and residential uses, to allow a 10 foot wide Type "B"landscape buffer. Petitioner's Rationale: The applicant states in his justification for this deviation the following: This deviation is intended to allow flexibility in the buffer between the internal community amenity center and adjacent residential lots, given site constraints due to the unique configuration of this community. The intended buffer will include a wall and the required type "B" buffer plantings, however allowing a minimum 10 foot buffer width will allow for a more creative design that could meander between the amenity center and adjacent residential lots. The all and vegetation buffer combination will provide adequate screening and sound attenuation to ensure compatibility between the uses.. Staff Analysis and Recommendation: Staff finds that the petitioner's deviation and rationale supportable for this project. While the proposed deviation reduces the required buffer width it also incorporates a wall requirement that will better address potential compatibility issues. Staff however recommends that the proposed wall noted in the application be made part of this landscape buffer deviation if approved. Zoning and Land Development Review staff recommends APPROVAL of this deviation with the limitations suggested above, finding that, in compliance with LDC Section 10.02.13.A.3, the petitioner has demonstrated that "the element may be waived without a detrimental effect on the health, safety and welfare of the community," and LDC Section 10.02.13.B.5.h, the petitioner has demonstrated that the deviation is "justified as meeting public purposes to a degree at least equivalent to literal application of such regulations." Staff recommends approval of the fifteen proposed deviation and a stipulation that incorporates deviation Figures 1 through 7 provided in the application into the deviation section of the PUD • document. The figures can be used to further clarify the purpose and intent of each deviation. (See staff recommendations and attachment C.) FINDINGS OF FACT: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staffs responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 17 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) Staff has reviewed the proposed amendment and believes the uses and property development regulations are compatible with the development approved in the area. The commitments made by the applicant should provide adequate assurances that the proposed change should not adversely affect living conditions in the area. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, 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. Documents submitted with the application,which were reviewed by the County Attorney's Office, demonstrate unified control of the property. Additionally, the development will be required to gain platting and/or site development approval. Both processes will ensure that appropriate stipulations for the provision of and continuing operation and maintenance of infrastructure will be provided by the developer. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has offered an analysis of the relevant goals, objectives and policies of the GMP within the GMP discussion and the analysis provided by Comprehensive Planning staff and the zoning analysis of this staff report. Based on those staff analyses, planning zoning staff is of the opinion that this PUD Amendment remains consistent with the overall GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Staff has provided a review of the proposed changes and believes that the project will be compatible with the surrounding area. The uses are not proposed to change as part of this amendment and the uses approved in the original PUD rezone were determined to be compatible. The petitioner is revising only minor property development standards, and staff believes uses remain compatible given those standards and project commitments. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. The amount of native preserve aside for this project meets the minimum requirement of the LDC. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project at this time, i.e., GMP consistent at the time of rezoning as evaluated as part of the GMP PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 18 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) Transportation Element consistency review. The project's development must comply with all other applicable concurrency management regulations when development approvals are sought. Additionally, the PUD document contains additional developer commitments that should help ensure there are adequate facilities available to serve this project. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. The area has adequate supporting infrastructure such as road capacity, wastewater disposal system, and potable water supplies to accommodate this project based upon the commitments made by the petitioner and the fact that adequate public facilities requirements will be addressed when development approvals are sought. 8. 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. The petitioner is seeking fifteen deviations to allow design flexibility in compliance with the purpose and intent of the Planned Unit Development Districts (LDC Section 2.03.06.A). This criterion requires an evaluation of the extent to which development standards and deviations proposed for this PUD depart from development standards that would be required for the most similar conventional zoning district. Staff has provided an analysis of the deviations in the Deviation Discussion portion of this staff report, and is recommending approval of the deviations. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.08.F. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations to the planning commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the planning commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. The zoning analysis provides an in-depth review of the proposed amendment. Staff is of the opinion that the project as proposed is consistent with GMP FLUE Policy 5.4 requiring the project to be compatible with neighborhood development. Staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the FLUE of the GMP. The petition can also be deemed consistent with the CCME and the Transportation Element. Therefore, staff recommends that this petition be deemed consistent with the GMP because uses are not changing with this amendment. 2. The existing land use pattern; Staff has described the existing land use pattern in the "Surrounding Land Use and Zoning" portion of this report and discussed it at length in the zoning review analysis. PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 19 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) Staff believes the proposed amendment is appropriate given the existing land use pattern, and development restrictions included in the PUD Ordinance. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; The proposed PUD amendment would not create an isolated zoning district because the subject site is already zoned PUD and there are no land additions proposed as part of this amendment. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staff is of the opinion that the district boundaries are logically drawn given the current property ownership boundaries and the existing PUD zoning. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The proposed amendment is not necessary,per se; but it is being requested in compliance with the LDC provisions to seek such amendment to allow the owner the opportunity to develop the land with uses other than what the existing zoning district would allow. Without this amendment, the property could be developed in compliance with the existing PUD ordinance regulations. The applicant's request is consistent with the proposed GMPA. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the proposed amendment, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent with the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project includes restrictions and development standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. Development in compliance with the proposed PUD amendment should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because of peak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. The roadway infrastructure has adequate capacity to serve the proposed project with the commitment that has been provided by the developer. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 20 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) The proposed amendment should not create drainage or surface water problems. The developer of the project will be required to adhere to a surface water management permit from the SFWMD in conjunction with any local site development plan approvals and ultimate construction on site. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; If this amendment petition is approved, any subsequent development would need to comply with the applicable LDC standards for development or as outlined in the PUD document. The location of the proposed buildings, combined with the setbacks and project buffers will help insure that light and air to adjacent areas will not be reduced. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area,. This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by a host of factors including zoning; however zoning by itself may or may not affect values, since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; The proposed zoning change should not be a deterrent to the improvement of adjacent properties. 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the Growth Management Plan which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with said Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could be developed within the parameters of the existing zoning designations; however, the petitioner is seeking this amendment in compliance with LDC provisions for such action. The petition can be evaluated and action taken as deemed appropriate through the public hearing process. Staff believes the proposed amendment meets the intent of the PUD district, if staffs conditions of approval are adopted, and further, believes the public interest will be maintained. PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 21 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County; As noted previously, the subject property already has a zoning designation of PUD; the PUD rezoning was evaluated at the rezoning stage and was deemed consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The petition was reviewed on its own merit for compliance with the GMP and the LDC; and staff does not review other sites in conjunction with a specific petition. The proposed amendment is consistent with the GMP as it is proposed to be amended as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. Additional development anticipated by the PUD document would require considerable site alteration. This project will undergo extensive evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan or platting approval process and again later as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by county staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the amendment process and those staff persons have concluded that no Level of Service will be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING (MM): DR Horton (contact purchaser of the project) in conjunction with RWA Consulting Inc., Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A., and Collier County Staff conducted a Neighborhood Information. Meeting (NIM) on October 1, 2013. Patrick Vanasse, AICP, Planning Director of RWA began the NIM meeting at 5:45 pm PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 22 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) Patrick welcomed the one and only attendant, Doug Fee, and introduced himself and project team: Steve Boyette, Project Manager representing DR Horton (contract purchaser of property); Rich Yovanovich, Land Use Attorney with Coleman, Yovanovich and Koester; Chris Hagan of Hagan Engineering representing the current owner of the property and contract seller; Margaret Emblidge, certified planner with RWA; and Mike Sawyer, planning reviewer with Collier County. Patrick presented a general project overview and handed out a fact sheet which included pertinent development information related to the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)Amendment application. The presentation generally addressed the following: • Project size:+/-51 acres • Project location:South East quadrant of intersection of Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Blvd. • Adjacent land uses:described information identified on PUD Master Plan • Previous zoning approval: PUD approval in 2008,for 204 residential units and accessory uses • Need for current amendment: owner recently completed ERP permit and proposed preserves depicted on 2008 PUD Master Plan had to be modified to make preserve area larger (11.08 ac to 12.04 ac) and contiguous to adjoining properties. As a result of approved ERP, Master Plan has to be modified, which led to the need for an amendment. • Other changes requested as part of amendment: in light of this need for a PUD amendment the contract purchased is asking the following changes to accommodate the revised site plan and engineering designed and DR Horton's development intent: o Moving access point along Veterans Memorial Blvd.to the east o Removal of developer commitments as directed by staff and to eliminate redundancy with LDC. o Add new deviations mostly associated with signage, due to limited visibility along Livingston Road and Veterans Memorial Blvd.;and to accommodate SFWMD dictated engineering design o Limited modification of design standards to allow flag lots and 5' side yard setbacks o Revisions to potential/conceptual project interconnections to a defined interconnection as approved in the SFWMD ERP. o Removal of the affordable housing contribution requirement. A number of questions were asked and comments were made by the attendee. Most of the questions related to clarifying elements of the RPUD amendment that were included in the application and briefly presented at this meeting. Q. Questions regarding the intended engineering of the accesses on Veterans Memorial Blvd.and Livingston Road. A. Both entrances will have turn lanes and Veterans Memorial Blvd. will have a full access opening and Livingston Road will be a right-in right-out only. Q. Clarification was requested for the signage deviations. A. It was explained that not all the deviations would be necessary but that the deviations were requested to allow larger signs to ensure visibility due to the locations of the entrances. For example, the entrance on Livingston Road is on a curve of a major thoroughfare having relatively higher speeds. It was explained that the sizes were similar to previously approved projects. Q. Questions regarding the future of Veterans Memorial Blvd.were asked. A. It was explained that this project was not affecting any plans that the County has for that road. Q. A Question was asked regarding the status of the potential interconnections previously included. PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 23 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) A. It was explained the previous plan had shown an interconnection to the south through Verona Pointe but since the SFWMD ERP resulted in the reconfiguration of the preserve areas this connection was no longer feasible. The potential interconnection to adjacent properties to the east has been provided on the Master Plan and was established through the SFWMD ERP. It was relayed that Staff has been in support of the revisions and that it met County interconnection requirements. Q. Clarification was asked for the proposed buffers and what the impact would be from the future North Naples Fire Station. A. It was explained that the Fire Station was not a perceived issue and that the proposed perimeter buffer and separation from the Fire Station site would address noise impacts as best as could be expected. Overall the discussion included providing a more detailed explanation of the information provided in the application. No new commitments were requested nor proposed. Meeting adjourned at 6:35 pm. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: The County Attorney Office has reviewed the staff report for this petition on 1/21/14. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the Collier County Planning Commission forward Petition PUDA- PL20130001056 to the BCC with a recommendation of approval subject to staff's recommended action on the deviations as shown below: Approval of Deviations 6 and 15 with the stipulation that the masonry wall noted in the application and staff report be made part of the required landscape buffers. Approval of Deviations 1 through 15 with the stipulation that the deviation figures 1 through 7 provided with the application be made part of deviation section of the PUD document. Attachments: A. Application B. PUD Ordinance C. Deviation figures 1 through 7 PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD Page 24 of 25 January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14, 1-21-14) PREPARED BY: • Ali /kW .1Im- t4- MIC AEL SAWY R, PROJECT MANAGER DATE PLANNING AN I ZONING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: i RAYMOND V. BELLOWS, ZONING MANAGER DATE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT MICHAEL BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE PLANNING AND ZONING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: I • NICK CASALANGUIDA,ADMINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the March 26, 2013 Board of County Commissioners Meeting PUDA-PL20130001056: Brandon RPUD January 15,2014(Revised 1-16-14) ORDINANCE NO. 13- AN ORDINANCE OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA AMENDING ORDINANCE NUMBER 08-13 WHICH ESTABLISHED THE BRANDON RESIDENTIAL PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT, TO RETAIN THE DENSITY OF 204 RESIDENTIAL UNITS; TO REVISE THE MASTER PLAN TO CHANGE THE LOCATION OF THE ENTRANCE ROAD ON VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD,TO RECONFIGURE THE ON- SITE PRESERVE AREAS AND RECONFIGURE THE DEVELOPMENT AREA; TO REVISE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS; TO ADD DEVIATIONS; AND TO MODIFY DEVELOPMENT COMMITMENTS INCLUDING REMOVAL OF THE AFFORDABLE HOUSING COMMITMENT. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS LOCATED ON THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF LIVINGSTON ROAD AND VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD IN SECTION 13, TOWNSHIP 48 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST, COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA, CONSISTING OF 51� ACRES; AND BY PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. [PUDA- PL20130001056] WHEREAS, Patrick Vanasse of RWA, Inc. and Richard D. Yovanovich, Esquire of Coleman, Yovanovich & Koester, P.A, representing D. R. Horton, Inc. petitioned the Board of County Commissioners to amend the Brandon Residential Planned Unit Development. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA that: SECTION ONE: Amendment to RPUD Document. The RPUD Document, attached as Exhibits "A" through "G" to Ordinance No. 08-13 is hereby amended and replaced with the RPUD Document attached hereto as Exhibits"A"through "I"and incorporated herein by reference, SECTION TWO: Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective upon filing with the Department of State. PASSED AND DULY ADOPTED by super-majority vote of the Board of County Commissioners of Collier County,Florida,this day of , 2013. Brandon RPUD\PUDZA-PL20130001056 9/13/13 1 of 2 ATTEST BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS DWIGHT E. BROCK,CLERK COLLIER COUNTY,FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk GEORGIA A. HILLER,ESQ. Chairwoman Approved as to form and legality: DRAFT Heidi Ashton-Cicko Managing Assistant County attorney Attachments: Exhibit A—Permitted Uses Exhibit B—Residential Development Standards Exhibit C—Master Plan Exhibit D—Legal Description Exhibit E- List of Requested Deviations Exhibit F—List of Development Commitments Exhibit G—Interlocal Agreement(no change) Exhibit H—Figure 1 —Conceptual Flag Lot Exhibit I- Figure 2—Conceptual Location—Off-Premises Sign CP\l3-CPS-01254\7 Brandon RPUD\PUDZA-PL20130001056 9/13/13 2 of 2 L10' PUE 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY 10' PUE Ilr_ 25' 25' 5' 5' 3' 2' 10' t 10' 2' 5' 5' I 50NCR °-SOD TRAVEL LANE' TRAVEL LANE gOD2bNCRETE" -I SIDEWALK SIDEWALK 2' VALLEY 1," GUTTER ( P. r- Q r �I8 PVC 7.5 7'5 PVC WATER FORCE MAN MAIN PVC GRAVITY SEWER TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTION WITH SIDEWALK ON BOTH SIDES N.T.S. 10' PUE 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY 10' PUE 25' 25' 5' 5' 3' 2' 10' 10' 2' 13' SIDEWALK`SOD 'TRAVEL LANE TRAVEL LANE `i 2' VALLEY GUTTER I {- (rP.1l F_ — I W Iltx W M O o YU PVC 7.5' 7.5' Y�PVC WATER FORCE MAIN MAIN PVC GRAVITY SEWER TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTION WITH SIDEWALK ON ONE SIDE N.T.S. �� PRESERVE 50' RIGHT-OF-WAY PRESERVE ,\,-.... 75' 25' 11.5' 1.5 2' 10' 10' 2' 6' 1' 4' WAVE-LOX TRAVEL LANE: "ONCRETE I 4' SIDEWALK 14.0—TD.O ' CURB T4.2-15.0 RIP-RAP -� RETAINING WALL 12.7 4.1 MpJI \ r / ----► +-- 4:1 M � EXISTING GRADE , '3'.\L r M R 14 .3 ' EXISTING GRADE_ 11.2 oo U TT.2t FPL, / CENTURYUNK, X5.0 PVC C I WATER OMCAST 3:1 (MAX) MAY BE MAIN CONSTRUCTED AS SLOPE ALTERNATIVE PVC GRAVITY SEWER TYPICAL RIGHT-OF-WAY CROSS SECTION ADJACENT TO PRESERVE N.T.S. DIX/A INC. /8/13 CLIENT: Pluming SCALE D.R. NORTON, INC. CONSULTING Civil Enginecing Z Vb. II VA. 1 Surveying&Mapping DRAWN m: TITLE: 6610 WHbw Park Drive,Sue 200 PTN_._...... BRANDON RPUD AMENDMENT Naples,Rode 34109 CHECKED et: FIGURE 1 (239)597.0575 FAX:(239)597-0578 ME www.consult•rwa.com Florida Certificates of Aulhor¢aGOn SEC. -YIP, RKE. PROJECT 130003.00.03 SHEET FILE FIGUREI 66 7683 LB6952 13 48S 25E NUMBER: N'JMBER: OF NUMBER. ) L _ _ _ _ VETERANS MEMORIAL BOULEVARD — — SIDEWALK --.....i II R — — SIDEWALK .JJ SIDEWALK f I LEGEND: (ieL210e 1 ( — SIDEWALK r SIDEWALK N-SIDEWALK r 1 \ _ ji SID WALK/A \ / j SIDEWALK `ld� \ , SIDEWALK 1���� O _.. -.. -144, \e6,41.4 SIDEWALK \OV N. \ N. D%ATAINC. a•1e CLIENT: Manning non 1o/s/13 D.R. HORTON, INC. SCALE: CONSULTING Civil Engineering 1" = 400' * t V YL A. Surveying&Mapping DRAWN BY TITLE: 6610 Mow Park O,Ne,8dlte200 PTN BRANDON RPUD AMENDMENT Naples,FA Florida 34106 CHECKED�: SIDEWALK PLAN - FIGURE 2 Ixa®I 597-0575 FAX Ir41 5974 578 www consult.rwa.com ME Florida Certificates off�52dzatlon 5Ec: TWP RGE: PROJECT 130003.00.03 SHEET 1 1 FILE FIGURE2 13 485 25E NUMBER: NUMBER. OF NUMBER Y L rI z a, a w� i. I�Fll w o.n !L 2 ° TP ago T ICI, W v o it 2 1 III I i 1 Z vi o O~ r ' w 6 z x 918 o.a 2CI m Ct �Z o$ � 0 Y a U_ CL D 1 D^I z z• p F O O N e4' a ^ O • 3 3 O• -J 0 m 0 ^-'I o CO in DIATA INC. DATE: CLIENT: Planning 10/a/13 D.R. HORTON, INC. Visualization SCALE: CONSULTING CivilpnginePing AL. \ V Surveying&Mapping DRAWN BY TITLE: 661 Willow Perk Drive,Suhe 200 _ ._PTN BRANDON R.PUD AMENDMENT 661 ,239)597-0575 FAX:(23D)597-0578 CHECKED BY: FIGURE 3 www.corsuh-nvacom M E Florida 6�a6pE5ofAr oezation SEC: Tvm: ace: PROJECT 130003.00.03 SHEET 1 FILE FIGURES 13 4BS 25E NUMBER . NUMBER. OF 1 NUMBER: R/W -."---1\/ LIVINGSTON ROAD 15' TYPE "D" BUFFER RIGHT-OF-WAY 10' ,,,� 20' L.M.E. ^ SOUTHWEST LAKE �� g zi 12' L ..-'.. 14' • w a 6' J m 14.3' �;� 14.6' 111 —I 3 v, 11.3'-11.5;_T --4.1 10.1 4:7 V CONTROL ELEVATION PERIMETER WALL 11.2' NAVD LIVINGSTON ROAD TYPICAL BERM SECTION R R/W DEVELOPED 27' D.E. 17' ± ` LOT L_15' TYPE "D" BUFFER RIGHT-OF-WAY VETERANS N-.- 3' 4' 10.4' 6' 3.6' MEMORIAL BLVD I A + ►2't 6' 6' . 15' MAX. WALL/BERM 14.8 �w, , 14.3' COM6I�ILQ� 13.2' Gist 1( 3_4' f � "'_ _ — T_ - -wwir.'-- 4..' 1 4,1 3, i 12.2' -- _-�r� PERIMETER WALL \11.0'-13.0' EXISTING GRADE PLANTING AREA VETERANS MEMORIAL BLVD TYPICAL BERM SECTION 30' O.C. DOUBLE - STAGGERED HEDGEROW, #3 SHRUBS PERIMETER WALL 24" HIGH AT PLANTING & MAINTAINED AT 36" /11■11••1111 M.01=IM_ _■IIIM_ MINIMMIE1_ c�o0e�00��00��00�i0000�00a0040000000a00�000) 15' so 000000 000�oo ��oec�oo0eoc4O .s--i-lot TYPE "D" BUFFER D%XTA . DATE: CLIENT:10/8/13 D.R. NORTON, INC. SCALE: CONSULTING Ovil Engine ing AL t V VA. AL Surveying&Mapping DRAWN BY: TITLE: 88t8Wllbw Par"Drive,Suite 280 _PTN BRANDON RPUD.. AMENDMENT ".057 Florida 34,08 CHECKED 3r: FIGURE 4 X239)597.8575 FAX:(239)5974578 www.consufl-rwa.com ME Florida CCeetiifi Certificates Authorization sec rwr: RCE: PROJECT 130003.00.03 SHEET > > FILE FIGURE4 13C 485 25E NUMBER: NUMBER: OF NUMBER: , j "1- .F-� , DOUBLE FACE SIGN :� 'V PROJECT ENTRY SIGN CONCEPT 1 (TYP.) N.T.S. N.T.S. imill11_III , \% r''o7/'- / i 41'1' ,--;:i.WP..-,:i;;Y;V. Illitt\t\ ..1%.,:: ::=:,:r4110-0,- `'��� I �/ _. ..4 TWO, SINGLE-FACE SIGNS PROJECT ENTRY SIGN CONCEPT 2(TYP.) N.T.S. N.T.S. i .441:7::: : '47:%. 3 .9t14 11 ._,A9111, :5,.....,-- p 011=1 , vtiowsiwo- _ !'c\�. \/- •'.- Or V-FACE SIGN _ ' � 1 PROJECT ENTRY SIGN N.T.S. CONCEPT 3(TYP.) N.T.S. NOTE: FIGURES PROVIDED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES. TYPICAL DIMENSIONS DEPICTED, HOWEVER FINAL CONFIGURATION WILL BE DEFINED AT PPL AND MAY VARY SLIGHTLY. DAITAiNC. DATE: CLIENT: DEC. 2013 D.R. NORTON, INC. Planning SCALE. CONSULTING Qvtl' Fagineaing N.T.S. .Z II. T TA. AL Surveying k Mapping DRAWN BY: TITLE: ti9,0 WI�Dpo1w Park Drive,Salts 200 M.F.G. BRANDON RPUD AMENDMENT (239)597.0575�;��)597-0578 Gym� S I G N AG E — FIGURE 5 www.conaok-rwa.com M.E. Florida Certificates of Authonzatcn SEC. TWP: RGE: PROJECT 130003.00.03 SHEET 1 FILE FIGURE 5 EB 7663 LB6952 13 48S 25E NUMBER: NUMBER; OF NUMBER: 8' If'll r-fa .) ....•,, ...‘- vx',',..:. •:i'.. - ...;`,,.AK Iili= ';``.1••;•• , - •‘'V, = Z.. PROJECT NAME T ,,.Y, ....j) i i • •5.4 t .....- ... .,::.;.'','...•;:.--m.... ...,EMAIL=1._—=-1W4-4-p-MIN B.....Y'''•„, ••••..'•'• IllEtTarmill... --mr.z,m - - - .., - ... ..... ... ... .... ... .- - .... _ .... - ... - -. BOUNDARY MARKER(TYP.) N.T.S. ...„ _ 10' e ) . , . .-_„,.., -, --=- „,....., 4,:iwatriomi-7,--evotww-a-* ,F;f.r.y.,-- -:.--,,,t,,,a,-,,,,, witief-,0",:--,7 -- ''t ,-,,J.T.- ....f.-! . -,,,,,,,;, , . t_ .0.. ,,...-.-_- -.-- - ' -- . S:;:;::: :-..--.7-;:;---:.----: ...-...„--:-_,-,__..........,_,...-.........A.4..., 3i--_: _,-- t‘,.,..--- -- ;',,,-.;-.1L., r■-------z rm-----7.1.---'-=-.---&-Ta r---1 7 1.-.-ii i ----"---m--=---00 6=7,,,--- 4.-■..,I:41Z MODELS 0 P EN 17:c.l.'.13 00 wargiav,...-vailva-c-"Rag --:_,SL,..!Fr-1.-.m,.---.Py,"_--._0.7--.IL.L,--m.-.--".-..T 1=I.---_a...-ENM....1,.-----,.g1re 5..--FW_:-_-aZi-..-k.-7Ti-.-.-.i.i.-..1,■_r.•sIr.".---..-"..em-,;".-ai-ig,..,-■.4.,i..--.ae6.,-_m,IA.-1r_•--•-_1N1■:-=_.,._---•.V-4i,,----pi-=-1-.--1_-,_--=-.r.■..-.-i1.4.■_.-,Zi.r-„■-.-.m-.-1.7.rE-..;.i!-r 1-ti--n--7__•■_-.--:---.■=-4-:i-t-.i•...l,=.k...-,--2i_1-;—l-i_-r..•P1.,•..,•B,P.-•7.•..-.=-_..2._,-1 I p.E.I7-a._.•_-M*=L----•a-■■l ie,•--',-_L._1.----■-=1i.-1.-:L-•44.■..1__-.-._1.-1.-.'.-,,-.,,,.-.','..,,,,-'':.:.-..,iA,-,.!'N,'.--".-.,7,.",''/„l,.,1,.J.;-!gI_--.r.0NE.1.c T7.1-Z----1.=.t.....07,...4..-.1..1-.4._1.-./a-.....,.......mE--.-,.==_._-_.7..4m-_.Et..!._..I..B-n,•-B--7,■.„:-=.7iZt.--_e"4■m_-.-k_A■.,a....l.l-Tr.i-0.-:,-.•.■g..-.m Ma..-.0.,l,-a..,.....•••-,-".:■.a.=LM.--._Tha..0.;.-B...L=.i."1,V-0;.-0-iL-g1BI.1 C:p1.■-.A,r.•mm.-:,.;I 6!-.--.m_-..%...,.-,,,,i'.Y....;,:,t-t.,.,':'•..:.e.f-...3.'..,.4v.v,:..,.<,..,,-.',`7.--.i....5.l i:2,, . .1 , - ,-._■i.,‹.,J,'.,1.-..7_I•2h■"7L..,..T,_.,*,.r.---,„-.-i._-•..._-.-.-r...i1 1-...-■.1.i,•i,...1-.,---"0a---e1.Z;1--!:i■a.i_,-,=.-.--,--o='1"--_---rg-.-.--..,,:.,a-,..-w,..■.i•■.,4:,_.M-...AM_t••.---:•61•.iW.-■,-=”_m a.-'.-1-=11-i..-.-,■7„r.i.=.,_-,--;9.-9....=-.------i 4-■-_;.iE■r1..,.1•:_.2:=1I_-:__.t.2,..-_-..6Ii--I.i-.nm..__-n,,=.'-.-_.---li:t-..i----k'--i.-i,-.-b--•-X-.A--:-_".1''=el---,',a ei."--_"ap-i"1•.-....:.._--..■.7-7.I,-_:im-3..ffF%7—1 111--&■—•1.1.a.-1.4-•.-::,-_-■I.7.--.g".--,.-=-4.- --...-S■,.u.-..-y...-1'r M5-...-._.-.•::. -.....--..,7.....--,..-....—_-■.... IP*117111insteirAiiiranW1116670-1rerWricetTar-Wartfalatr-tii4F-ATilrgririirliga.: Urdem-:-=. .-101 . :--=..-■-.mr-...--,.a.---7•-- -U-aso ...,-11•'.:.-••-■=1=--a..wol. --■11.Qmotaium.-.7...:-.. ..=...4..- -.=-m.:. .-w.w. ..... - _ _ 2 - - - ...... _ - _ ... _ - -- - _ - - - - - - - -_ - - - - • - - - - -_ _ - _ - - - - - - - - - - - - - u..I M TEMPORARY BANNER SIGN(TYP.) N.T.S. NOTE: FIGURES PROVIDED FOR ILLUSTRATIVE PURPOSES. TYPICAL DIMENSIONS DEPICTED, HOWEVER FINAL CONFIGURATION WILL BE DEFINED AT PPL AND MAY VARY SLIGHTLY. DWA INC. Planning Visualization DATE. DEC. 2013 RCN E: CLIENT: D.R. HORTON, INC. CONSULTING Civil Engineering N.T.S. JL. Vlb. V V.A. 1 Surveying&Mapping DRAWN BY. TITLE: BRANDON RPUD AMENDMENT 6610 Willow Park DFAW,Suite 200 Naples,Florida 34109 CHECKED BY. SIGNAGE FIGURE 5A (239)597-0575 FAX:(239)597-0578 -M.E. www.coraull-rwa.com Florida earth:ales ol Authorization SEC: nap, rtor PROJECT i 10003.00.03 SHEET i 1 FILE ED 7883 L86952 13 48S 25E NUMBER. i•-.. NUMBER. , OF I NUMBER: FIGURE 5A /i / /' ....----7.->/ / V // // /./ // /% i/ ./..-- - / % // -/ // // // // // �. '77 7 7 7 (fr ...- // // V // %/ f ROW LINE // /j 1 / // I / 5' MINIMUM / / ROW SETBACK // APPROXIMATE LOCATION OF Adigillilik OFFSITE SIGN I liki PROJECT BOUNDARY - j, %i \ \ I \ \ I \ \ \\ ii CONCEPTUAL LOCATION - OFFSITE SIGN DAXTAINC. °^,E. CLIENT: D.R. NORTON, INC.Planning �o/e/�3 Visualization scuE: CONSULTING Civil&nginecring 1 = 40 Z L V 1L 1 Surveying&Mapping DRAWN er: TITLE: 8610 Willow Park-0dve;Suite 200 ...PTN BRANDON RPUD.._AMENDMENT Naples,Florida 34109 CHECKED 9Y: FIGURE 6 (239)597-0575 FAX(239)597-0578 ME www.consulbrwa.com Florida Certificates of Authorization SEC: rww. RCE-. PROJECT 130003.00.03 SHEET 1 FILE FIGURE6 13 48S 25E NUMBER: NUMBER: OF 1 NUMBER: 22' MINIMUM FRONTAGE ! ' FOR FLAG LOTS / SO RO(.y f (MEASURED ALONG THE CHORD CONNECTING THE ,', LOT LINES AT THE ROW) / 5' SIDEWALK 7 ', / i ■ \ ■ \--- \1 20' MINIMUM SETBACK \ TO B.O.C. \ \ 1 I 50' MINIMUM LOT WIDTH FOR DEVELOPABLE PORTION OF FLAG LOT 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK — 5' SIDE YARD SETBACK I L__ J T- - - PRINCIPAL STRUCTURE 15' MIN. REAR YARD PROJECT BOUNDARY 5CCESORY STRUCTURE 1 5' MINN. SETBACK — TYPICAL FLAG LOT SETBACKS 1 \X1A = 0 o: CLIENT: D.R. HORTON, INC. Sc /a/1n CONSULT ING Civil Fngineering 1 = 30 Z \ Y TA. 1 Surveying&Mapping °RAwa 8Y: TITLE: 8810-Naples RoDrive,ur 200 CHECKED PTN BRANDON RPUD AMENDMENT BY (239)597-0575 FAX:(239)597-0578 M E FIGURE 7 www.consultwrwacom Florida Certificates of Authorization SEC: 1W?: ROE. PROJECT 130003.00.03 SHEET E87663 L86952 13 48S 25E NUMBER NUMBER. OF NUMBER: AGENDA ITEM 9-D Coltter County STAFF REPORT TO: COLLIER COUNTY PLANNING COMMISSION FROM: PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT GROWTH MANAGEMENT DIVISION HEARING DATE: FEBRUARY 6, 2014 SUBJECT: PUDZ-PL20130002779: TEMPLE CITRUS GROVE RPUD PROPERTY OWNER& APPLICANT/AGENT: Owners: Agents: John A. Pulling,Jr. Revocable Trust Robert L. Duane, AICP John A. Pulling,Jr. Trust Robert L. Duane &Associates John A. Pulling,Jr. &Marsha Ford Pulling 4880 Tamarind Ridge Drive 5610 Yahl Street, Suite 6 Naples, FL 34119 Naples, FL 34109-1921 R. Bruce Anderson,Esq. Contract Purchaser: Roetzel &Andress,LPA G.L. Homes of Florida II Corporation 850 Park Shore Drive 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy, Suite 400 Naples,FL 34103 Sunrise, FL 33323 Kevin Ratteree,AICP G.L. Homes of Florida 1600 Sawgrass Corporate Pkwy. Suite 400 Sunrise, FL 33323 REQUESTED ACTION: The subject site is a citrus grove in active production, with an accessory farm stand, zoned Rural Agricultural (A). The applicant requests a rezone to the Residential Planned Unit Development (RPUD)zoning district for a maximum of 512 dwelling units on 132.68 acres. GEOGRAPHIC LOCATION: The subject property is 132.68±acres in size and is located east of Airport-Pulling Road, west of Livingston Road, approximately one mile north of Pine Ridge Road. Temple Citrus Grove RPUD,PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 1 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC < z ; " m , o S : —— •—— — IIIIIIIIIIIII�IIH�I����IIIII 1111% — —— N——— a 3 MS I =ri `�`7 � u v ' —BINIIIIIIIIOc.. MITI .. ;i: 1NN111111111111111NI1 i _1 Y _ INI 1 4 ¢bp a. •. ,d: rill_ 1\O =1 • u\• 1 D. w-L 1tl+liii0►�giillIInfo lYi11/It a''1 a L' .. -• „................„ _L._ .1 .1 _ z ,� lit"i-7,A % . ... ..; "aril" 11 ilt.i Iill V !!J LIP:� t 1�1n��1ann111p�i NI g4 �! E . — 1114 Ia ,;/ - 1 ail il I:0 N. �r chi]r ' .7—����l.ol ���1��4 N _-1 ��i __ �, yy 111111!AA $ � � � i < � 2 l�mV'! � 0 4 _ �2 N Eli « , 1i 9 F If 1 gi1 n N crrrrmnTTTT11117> _ ; 1 r `., i J MVOS 0110N 0 D O.! _ .I oarn3,noe_�y 1 z aavra,noe wr�o, , — — 'gg unnaxna vaseare lws I-.. �'.. g� C k3 g . ' E� : / a H. s ��: gal s nmV b X31 ii"3 k o. i , 1 0z y o o v�vsaalw fJ ru-uruwuwr % � — O ,A...., - la P if - ;- ; . . 1 .1u i 1 1 li Win I sV �q1 ~l 1 i �` R3�1 C 8 , i .. � ll =1Z � G ININGSTON sow ) lil Till" A� ooa WISDaN, IIII Oval gg �` �savN wv�>x b ! 11- is "5 ai, § g g, Z E x 5. a, a -" 1' $ 1 n 3 n 38 0 i1 n i i ;ilii;11 3 § �I �I, g r Ye _ G 6 owa aa,ina man V - 'Q!1� a�� aaon ,xw taodary _ 3 —_ ill `x 1E1 g � � l- g !!1 I,. U ill liX 1 I I; I a ii $�, .git% ram i d- - 1 ,,,,,,, +/ MNrg331� ----t n n „ g n �a `b W Ovow YMWJ"d431000`0 Ii,; II . wu warm Ss -,val/.mm_ ■ 1"4 — PURPOSE AND DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: The petitioner requests a rezone from A to RPUD to create the Temple Citrus Grove RPUD. The RPUD would permit a maximum of 512 dwelling units on 132.68 acres for a gross density of 3.86 dwelling units per acre (DU/A). Because the subject site has frontage on two arterial roads, the Density Rating System (DRS) would permit the applicant to request a maximum of 5 DU/A (base density of 4 DU/A+ 1 DU/A bonus), so the applicant's request is consistent with the DRS. Please note that density is not an entitlement, but is a consideration based on many factors discussed in this report. The subject site has a farm stand that is accessory to the principal use of agriculture. The RPUD permits the farm stand to continue operation until a Certificate of Occupancy is issued for 75 percent (384) of the dwelling units. At that time, all agricultural activity shall cease. No preserve is required within the RPUD, because the existing vegetation is all non-native (citrus). Manchester Square is a subdivision which abuts Temple Citrus Grove to the east and south. The Manchester Square RPUD contains the following language: "The conceptual master plan identifies a potential interconnection with the property to the north. The interconnection shall occur if this northern project entrance is constructed, and agreement is reached with the adjacent property owner, in which the property owner agrees to pay 50% of the construction costs of that portion of the access drive from Livingston Road to the interconnection, and a proportionate share of the on-going maintenance costs. The maintenance costs shall be based on the number of dwelling units and/or square footage, if property is developed with non-residential uses for each project." After a careful review of the plat dedications and a clarification through further correspondence from the original developer of Manchester Square, the plat does provide for a publicly dedicated access easement. The cross access easement was documented in Board minutes as the identified access point for the future development of the Temple Citrus PUD. This connection should be the primary access point on Livingston Road for the Manchester Square PUD and the Temple Citrus PUD. It has been designed and constructed to serve that purpose and protect the integrity of Livingston Road. MANCHESTER SOUA r A SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN SECTION 12, TOWNSHIP 49 SOUTH, RANGE 25 EAST `--- :°—.r.m." Jkr,.+A'rro COLLIER COUNTY, FLORIDA L_.___; �� _- 4 _ vg5s!n'eM.b -owac=`xarMeRas.sron ' A Alin. t 1ll - __-7,I .-iX' _iJr"r"IIirtr YP iNA'• 1X'- " 1t .4 !racc�y(0.7- „, 1,,, C1'°'°."`. a tv:rcekaf'mx 14ms a ?, _" r' �,ea M: S _T..� ,_A3- I ■ erg i Y' M'?ReeK...' ,�-.— _`spy"�-�- �.F ...,..,-. ' : Vo•-19 Pr iANC➢Affil SAYI� „, A detail from the plat of Manchester Square Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 3 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC Temple Citrus 1 5 Existing walled 4 11 a al ROW I Ef. iii / — 1 i , , . ., ; I i s i ttl • i j i 1. j t I Ma i heste r Suarel\ it i i q I , ! I 1 I I 1 A detail from the Manchester Square Master Plan SURROUNDING LAND USE AND ZONING: North: Office buildings, zoned Willow Park PUD; the Walden Oaks residential subdivision, zoned Lone Oak PUD; and a church and school campus, zoned First Baptist Church of Naples PUD. East: Livingston Road ROW, across which is a mix of developed and vacant residential lots, zoned Estates (E); and the Manchester Square residential subdivision; zoned Manchester Square RPUD. South: Malibu Lakes multifamily residential development, zoned Residential Multifamily (RMF-12); a single-family residence (a remnant parcel retained by John Pulling), zoned A; a campus owned by Collier County Public Schools, including Barron Collier High School and school bus depot, zoned Residential Single Family (RSF-3); and the Manchester Square residential subdivision; zoned Manchester Square RPUD. West: Airport-Pulling Road ROW, across which is the Trade Center of Naples subdivision; zoned Industrial (I); and the Walden Oaks residential subdivision, zoned Lone Oak PUD. Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 4 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC fr.: ,h.., • * rwr, il _ :•--- ...-- _...... -- =-ate---II_attli- tar Y:NI yaw's* Temple C,th�rs( o4 RPUtY I X f f 4,17_ [ La, j } t,_- •" , '., a_ ;awn , _ , Aerial Photo(CCPA) II r II ` 4 e ..y , Subject Property—detail of western portion(Bing Bird's Eye View) <. ss, `t' .4 ,: ce► -,, , K.. - t i ,' d� ti ,: II.4 • ' l f ^ t } O Subject Property—detail of eastern portion(Bing Bird's Eye View) Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 5 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC Subject Property—view to the east from Airport Road(Googie Street View) rr+f Subject Property—view to the west from Livingston Road(Google Street View) GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN (GMP)CONSISTENCY: The subject property is designated Urban, Urban Mixed Use District, Urban Residential Subdistrict, as depicted on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) and in the Future Land Use Element (FLUE) of the Collier County Growth Management Plan (GMP). Relevant to this petition, this designation allows: residential development (variety of unit types), including associated accessory recreational uses; agricultural uses; and, recreation and open space uses — the uses proposed in this PUD. Under the FLUE's Density Rating System, the project is eligible for a maximum density of 5 DU/A, without providing affordable-workforce housing; eligible density is not an entitlement. The applicant proposes 512 DUs, yielding 3.86 DU/A. Base Density 4 DU/A Roadway Access Bonus +1 DU/A Maximum eligible density 5 DU/A x 132.68 acres= 663.4=663 DUs Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 6 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC FLUE Policy 5.4 requires new developments to be compatible with the surrounding land area. Comprehensive Planning leaves this determination to Zoning Services staff as part of their review of the petition in its entirety. In order to promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following FLUE policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects, where applicable. Each policy is followed by staff analysis in [bold text]. Objective 7: In an effort to support the Dover, Kohl & Partners publication, Toward Better Places: The Community Character Plan for Collier County, Florida, promote smart growth policies, and adhere to the existing development character of Collier County, the following policies shall be implemented for new development and redevelopment projects,where applicable. Policy 7.1: The County shall encourage developers and property owners to connect their properties to fronting collector and arterial roads, except where no such connection can be made without violating intersection spacing requirements of the Land Development Code. [Exhibit C-1, PUD Master Plan, depicts direct access to Airport-Pulling Road and Livingston Road,both classified as arterial roads in the Transportation Element.] Policy 7.2: The County shall encourage internal accesses or loop roads in an effort to help reduce vehicle congestion on nearby collector and arterial roads and minimize the need for traffic signals. [Exhibit C-1, PUD Master Plan, depicts multiple loop roads that connect to a road that runs through the entire project from Airport-Pulling Road to Livingston Road.] Policy 7.3: All new and existing developments shall be encouraged to connect their local streets and their interconnection points with adjoining neighborhoods or other developments regardless of land use type. [Most surrounding lands are developed and interconnections are not feasible. Exhibit C-1, PUD Master Plan, depicts an interconnection to the one property where an interconnection appears to be feasible - site to the south containing a single family dwelling, zoned A, Rural Agricultural, and under the same ownership as the subject site, but excluded from this PUD.] Policy 7.4: The County shall encourage new developments to provide walkable communities with a blend of densities, common open spaces, civic facilities and a range of housing prices and types. [The PUD allows for a variety of dwelling unit types. Open space is required at 60%, and 63% is provided per Exhibit C-1, Master Plan. A sidewalk will be provided on both sides of roads except, per Deviation No. 9, on only one side of all streets with a 40' right-of-way (much of the westerly half of the site) — depicted on Exhibit C-4, sidewalk plan. Approximately one-half of the residential area abutting a 40'r/w is single loaded (lot on one side of street only) and about one-half is double loaded (lot on both sides of the street). Three loop roads comprise all of the 40' r/w Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 7 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC such that the single loaded areas and double loaded areas are intermittent. Two of these three loop roads connect to a 50' r/w,which will have sidewalks on both sides. Under these specific circumstances,staff does not object to the requested deviation.] Based upon the above analysis, the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the Future Land Use Element. ANALYSIS: Deviation Discussion: Deviation 1. A deviation from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.3.e, Model Homes and Model Sales Centers, which limits a model home to a period of three years. The requested deviation would permit a model home for a period of eight years before requiring a Conditional Use. The applicant's experience in the housing market indicates that project build-out may be longer than three years, so the applicant requests the life of a model home be increased to eight years, with the possibility of longer period via a Conditional use. Staff agrees with this analysis and has no objection. Deviation 2. A deviation from LDC Section 5.04.04.B.5.c, Model Homes and Model Sales Centers, which limits model homes to a maximum of 5 models or ten percent of the platted lots, whichever is less. The requested deviation would permit a maximum of 16 model homes and a sales center. The applicant's experience in the housing market, again, is the basis of this request. The maximum number of units (512) and the variety of housing types, would support a maximum of 16 models. The applicant also cites examples of PUDs where a similar deviation was approved. Staff agrees with this analysis and has no objection. Deviation 3. A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.1.a, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which permits two ground signs with a maximum height of 8 feet. The requested deviation would increase the maximum height to 10 feet in height. The applicant requests this deviation to increase exposure along Livingston Road, an arterial six-lane road with a landscaped median. The applicant again cites examples of PUDs with a similar deviation. Staff agrees with this analysis and has no objection. Deviation 4A. A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which allows a maximum of two ground signs at the entrance to a project. The requested deviation would permit an additional two ground signs at the entrance to the recreation parcel. The applicant states that this deviation is necessary because the LDC does not permit sufficient size of signage to community gathering areas. In addition, the applicant states that these signs will have no impact on surrounding properties. Staff has no opinion on Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 8 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC the adequacy of the sign area, but agrees that these signs will only be visible to residents and visitors to the community, and therefore; Staff has no objection. Deviation 4B. A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.6.b, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which allows a maximum of 64 square feet total sign area for entrance signs. The requested deviation allows a combined total of 128 square feet for the Livingston Road entrance signs and a combined total of 64 square feet for the recreation parcel entrance signs. The recreation parcel signs shall not exceed the height or length of the wall or gate upon which it is located. The applicant states that the 1,050 linear feet of frontage along Livingston Road, the 45 MPH speed limit, and the 275-foot wide FPL easement all contribute to the request for increased sign area. Staff agrees that the width of the FPL easement provides justification for this deviation. Deviation 5. A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.b, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which allows directional signs to be combined into one sign with a maximum height of eight feet and a maximum area of 24 square feet. The deviation would permit no limit on the number of combined directional signs (8 feet in height, 24 square-foot area)with a minimum separation of 100 feet or a road right-of-way. The applicant states that the RPUD will be comprised of a number of communities and that this deviation will permit easier navigation of the site. Staff agrees that these signs will only be visible to residents and visitors to the community,and therefore; Staff has no objection. Deviation 6. A deviation from LDC Section 5.06.02.B.5.a, Development Standards for Signs within Residential Districts, which requires on-premise directional signs to be set back a minimum of 10 feet from the edge of road, paved surface, or back of curb. The deviation would reduce the setback to 5 feet if there are no safety concerns. The applicant states that the reduced setback will be a convenience to residents and visitors. Transportation Staff has no objection to this deviation in general, and will review individual sign placement for safety concerns at each development order. Deviation 7. A deviation from LDC Section 5.04.06.A.3.e, Temporary Signs, which limits the area of temporary signs on residentially zoned property to 4 square feet. The deviation would increase the maximum to 48 square feet. The applicant again cites experience in the housing market as a justification for increasing the size of temporary signs, in addition to the speed limit and width of the FPL easement. The applicant also cites a similar approved deviation in a PUD (The Parklands). Staff agrees that the width of the FPI, easement provides justification for this deviation. Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 9 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC Deviation 8. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.01.N and Appendix B, which require cul-de- sacs and local streets to have a minimum 60-foot wide right-of-way. The deviation would permit a reduction in width to a minimum of 40 feet. The applicant states that all required infrastructure can be included within 40-foot and 50- foot right-of-way cross-sections. The applicant cites a similar approved deviation in a similar PUD. Transportation Staff has reviewed this deviation and has no objection. Deviation 9. A deviation from LDC Section 6.06.02.A.1, Sidewalks, Bike Lane and Pathway Requirements, which requires sidewalks on both sides of a local street. The deviation would allow a sidewalk five feet in width on one side of a street 40 feet in width. The applicant states that most rights-of-way proposed to be 40 feet wide, will have houses on only one side of the street. In the case of 40-foot wide rights-of-way, the applicant proposes a sidewalk in front of houses on both sides of the street. Transportation Staff reviewed this deviation and has no objection. Deviation 10. A deviation from LDC Section 4.07.02.F, Off-Street Parking for Planned Unit Developments, which requires off-street parking requirements for comparable type, density and intensity of the uses in the PUD. The deviation would permit the recreational tract to provide parking at 75 percent of LDC requirements. The applicant states that the RPUD will be pedestrian- and bicycle-friendly and that the proposed deviation will allow adequate parking while reducing the amount of impervious surface. Staff's analysis indicates that in LDC Section 4.05.04 Table 17,the required parking for a community with a majority of residents more than 300 feet away from the recreational facilities, parking may be reduced to 50 percent of the requirement. For example, a fitness center requires 1 parking space per 100 square feet; therefore, according to the LDC, a fitness center as an accessory to a private community would require 1 parking space per 200 square feet. This deviation would reduce that further to 0.75 parking space per 200 square feet. Further calculations show that a 1,000 square-foot fitness facility in this RPUD, without this deviation, would require 5 parking spaces and the same size facility with this deviation would require 4 parking spaces. Staff does not believe this deviation to be significant and has no objection. Deviation 11. A deviation from LDC Section 4.06.02.C.2 which requires a 15-foot wide buffer on the northern property line adjacent to the Lone Oak PUD and the Willow Park PUD. The deviation would permit a 10-foot wide buffer in that location. The applicant states that along this property line, adjacent to Willow Park, the Master Plan indicates houses only on the south side of the road, across the street from the property line. For the portion of the border adjacent to Walden Oaks, a wall will be constructed. The applicant believes that these conditions ameliorate the reduction in buffer width. Staff agrees with the analysis and has no objection. Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 10 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC FINDINGS OF FACT: PUD Findings: LDC Subsection 10.02.13.B.5 states that, "In support of its recommendation, the CCPC shall make findings as to the PUD Master Plan's compliance with the following criteria" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold): 1. The suitability of the area for the type and pattern of development proposed in relation to physical characteristics of the land, surrounding areas, traffic and access, drainage, sewer, water, and other utilities. Staff has reviewed the proposed PUD and believes that it is compatible with the surrounding properties and will not adversely impact infrastructure. 2. Adequacy of evidence of unified control and suitability of any proposed agreements, contracts, 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. Evidence of unified control has been established and is provided in the attached application. 3. Conformity of the proposed Planned Unit Development with the goals, objectives, and policies of the Growth Management Plan (GMP). Staff has reviewed this petition and has determined that this petition may be found consistent with the GMP. 4. The internal and external compatibility of proposed uses, which conditions may include restrictions on location of improvements, restrictions on design, and buffering and screening requirements. Staff's review indicates that the applicant has designed the RPUD to be compatible with adjacent properties by incorporating appropriate buffers and by placing residential uses next to other residential uses. 5. The adequacy of usable open space areas in existence and as proposed to serve the development. A majority of the site is currently open space; however, it is an active agricultural operation, not usable open space. The proposed RPUD will incorporate usable open space in addition to the residences and infrastructure. 6. The timing or sequence of development for the purpose of assuring the adequacy of available improvements and facilities, both public and private. It is Staff's opinion that the timing of the planned development will assure adequacy of public and private improvements and facilities. 7. The ability of the subject property and of surrounding areas to accommodate expansion. Temple Citrus Grove RPUD,PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 11 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC One of the uses on the subject site is the farm stand. That use will only be permitted transitionally during development, and will eventually be sunsetted. The replacement residential use will help to accommodate expansion. 8. 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. The proposed RPUD is consistent with PUD regulations,with the proposed deviations, and seeks to meet a desired purpose of serving the residential needs of buyers in the urban area. Rezone Findings: LDC Subsection 10.03.05.1. states, "When pertaining to the rezoning of land, the report and recommendations from the Planning Commission to the Board of County Commissioners...shall show that the Planning Commission has studied and considered proposed change in relation to the following when applicable" (Staff's responses to these criteria are provided in bold font): 1. Whether the proposed change will be consistent with the goals, objectives, &policies of the Future Land Use Map and the elements of the Growth Management Plan. Staffs analysis indicates that the proposed RPUD may be deemed consistent with the GMP. 2. The existing land use pattern; The existing land use pattern was reviewed and the proposed RPUD will not substantially alter that pattern. In fact, the eventual removal of the farm stand use, will make the site more compatible with surrounding land uses by removing an accessory commercial use. 3. The possible creation of an isolated district unrelated to adjacent and nearby districts; Staffs analysis indicates that the proposed RPUD is compatible with surrounding land uses and will not create an isolated district. 4. Whether existing district boundaries are illogically drawn in relation to existing conditions on the property proposed for change. Staffs analysis indicates that existing district boundaries are logically drawn. 5. Whether changed or changing conditions make the passage of the proposed rezoning necessary. The petitioner believes that the changing real estate market will result in quick sales for the proposed residential units. 6. Whether the proposed change will adversely influence living conditions in the neighborhood; Staff is of the opinion that the RPUD, with the commitments made by the applicant, can been deemed consistent the County's land use policies that are reflected by the Future Temple Citrus Grove RPUD,PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 12 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC Land Use Element (FLUE) of the GMP. The project includes standards that are designed to address compatibility of the project. The RPUD should not adversely impact living conditions in the area. 7. Whether the proposed change will create or excessively increase traffic congestion or create types of traffic deemed incompatible with surrounding land uses, because ofpeak volumes or projected types of vehicular traffic, including activity during construction phases of the development, or otherwise affect public safety. Staff's analysis of the applicant's traffic study indicates that the RPUD will not cause the Level of Service of both Airport-Pulling Road and Livingston Road to fail. 8. Whether the proposed change will create a drainage problem; South Florida Water Management District regulations and Collier County regulations will be required to be observed. 9. Whether the proposed change will seriously reduce light and air to adjacent areas; The proposed dimensional standards,when reflected in the final residential structures, will not affect the light and air circulation to adjacent areas,in Staff's opinion. 10. Whether the proposed change will adversely affect property values in the adjacent area; This is a subjective determination based upon anticipated results,which may be internal or external to the subject property. Property valuation is affected by many factors including zoning; however,zoning by itself may or may not affect values,since value determination is driven by market conditions. 11. Whether the proposed change will be a deterrent to the improvement or development of adjacent property in accordance with existing regulations; All surrounding properties are developed. (The remainder agricultural parcel to the south may at some future date request a rezone. The sole access of this parcel is an interconnection through the Temple Citrus Grove RPUD.) 12. Whether the proposed change will constitute a grant of special privilege to an individual owner as contrasting with the public welfare; The proposed development complies with the GMP which is a public policy statement supporting zoning actions when they are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In light of this fact, the proposed change does not constitute a grant of special privilege. Consistency with the FLUE is further determined to be a public welfare relationship because actions consistent with plans are in the public interest. 13. Whether there are substantial reasons why the property cannot be used in accordance with existing zoning; The subject property could continue to operate as a citrus grove and farm stand; however, the petitioner believes that the residential use will provide necessary housing in a changing real estate market. Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 13 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC 14. Whether the change suggested is out of scale with the needs of the neighborhood or the County,. Staff's analysis indicates that the RPUD may be found consistent with the GMP. The GMP is a policy statement which has evaluated the scale, density and intensity of land uses deemed to be acceptable throughout the urban-designated areas of Collier County. Staff is of the opinion that the development standards and the developer commitments will ensure that the project is not out of scale with the needs of the community. 15. Whether is it impossible to find other adequate sites in the County for the proposed use in districts already permitting such use. The applicant desires to provide housing in the urban area, and this site provides a large site in the urban area. The proposed RPUD is consistent with the GMP as discussed in other portions of the staff report. 16. The physical characteristics of the property and the degree of site alteration, which would be required to make the property usable for any of the range of potential uses under the proposed zoning classification. This project will undergo evaluation relative to all federal, state, and local development regulations during the site development plan approval process and again as part of the building permit process. 17. The impact of development on the availability of adequate public facilities and services consistent with the levels of service adopted in the Collier County Growth Management Plan and as defined and implemented through the Collier County Adequate Public Facilities Ordinance, as amended. This petition has been reviewed by County Staff that is responsible for jurisdictional elements of the GMP as part of the PUD process and Staff has concluded that the Level of Service will not be adversely impacted with the commitments contained in the PUD document. 18. Such other factors, standards, or criteria that the Board of County Commissioners(BCC) shall deem important in the protection of the public health, safety, and welfare. To be determined by the BCC during its advertised public hearing. ENVIRONMENTAL ADVISORY COUNCIL(EAC)RECOMMENDATION: The CCPC, sitting as the EAC, is not required to hear this petition because no environmental issues were identified. NEIGHBORHOOD INFORMATION MEETING(NIM): The applicant held two Neighborhood Information Meetings (NIMs). The first was held on August 15, 2013. The second NIM was held on November 5, 2013, after the applicant Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 14 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC incorporated an additional 5+ acres (the farm stand) into the RPUD. The NIM summaries, prepared by the applicant, are attached. COUNTY ATTORNEY OFFICE REVIEW: This Staff Report was reviewed by the Office of the County Attorney on January 28,2014. RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends that the CCPC seriously consider the interconnection of the subject site with the Manchester Square RPUD at the location indicated on the Manchester Square RPUD Master Plan. Staff recommends that the CCPC forward Petition PUDZ-PL20120002779, the Temple Citrus Grove RPUD,to the BCC with a recommendation of approval. Temple Citrus Grove RPUD,PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 15 of 16 February 6,2014 CCPC • PREPARED BY: /—/to /`1 F' • ' 'SCHL, AICP, SENIOR PLANNER DATE PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT REVIEWED BY: RAYM( 1D V. BELLOWS,ZONING MANAGER DATE PLANNING&ZONING DEPARTMENT MIKE BOSI, AICP, DIRECTOR DATE PLANNING &ZONING DEPARTMENT APPROVED BY: Ar N K CASAL I I A,ADMINISTRATOR DATE GROWTH MA'AGEMENT DIVISION Tentatively scheduled for the March 11, 2014 Board of County Commissioners Meeting Temple Citrus Grove RPUD, PUDZ-PL20120002779 Page 15 of 15 February 6,2014 CCPC Robert L. Duane & Associates Land Planning&Zoning Consultants A.I.C.P. 4880 Tamarind Ridge Dr.Naples FL.34119 Office(239)353-4167 cells(239)595-5096/682-1339 robertrosalba.duaneAvahoo.com NIM Minutes Aug.15, 2013 The meeting began at 5:30 pm and was attended by 46 residents, at the Italian American Club. Robert Duane of Robert L. Duane & Associates began with an introduction of Kevin Ratterree, Vice president of GL Homes, the primary presenter, Ted Treesh from TR Transportation and Bruce Anderson Esq. from Roetzel & Andress, LPA. Fred Reischl, AICP was the county planner in attendance. Robert indicated the application was filed 3 months ago and the public hearings for the rezoning application will be held later this year or next spring. Kevin introduced the project comprising 512 dwelling units (D.U.'s) on 128 acres and reviewed the surrounding projects and land uses. The project density is four units per acre and 5 units per acre are allowed by the Growth Management Plan (GMP). GL Homes does not own the property but expects to close after the first of the year if zoning approvals are obtained and construction would commence shortly thereafter. Kevin also encouraged those in attendance to visit GL Homes other communities. Saturnia Lakes, Marbella Lakes, and Riverstone that may be the best to visit because the gates are currently open. The subject property will be a gated community separated from Livingston Road by a wide FPL Easement. Access will be from Livingston Road, the primary entrance, with a right in right out. Kevin indicated that the project was not allowed a left in or left out due to the existing median openings located to the North (North Naples Baptist Church) and South (Manchester Square) of the subject property on Livingston Road. Access on Airport Road will be right-in-right out and a South bound turn lane into the project from Airport Pulling Road. As currently planned based on today's real estate market the housing types proposed comprise three residential housing types and the Recreation Area. Single- family homes are proposed in the northeastern portion of the project; Zero lot homes to the Southeastern portion of the project; and duplex homes to the West side of the project. The attached conceptual plan depicts the general location of the three housing types, subject to variations based on market conditions and conditions that may be imposed on the project. The zero lot line detached homes are anticipated to be on 45 foot wide lots and 130 foot deep. Single family detached homes on 52 wide lots and 130 deep. The buffers will be 15 feet in width; but ten (10) feet by Lone Oak, with a wall. However, the walls on the north and west property lines of Manchester Square will be the Manchester Square existing walls. The west and north side of the Manchester Square wall are not painted and GL has agreed to paint. GL and Manchester Square are entering into a maintenance agreement for that purpose. Trees will be spaced on 25 foot wide centers and the 15' buffer (10' by Lone Oak) will be a separate tract not included on individual lots to insure proper maintenance. Questions from residents including topical areas are summarized below: 1. Density - Can it be increased? (From several residents). Kevin said not without going through the PUD amendment process. The present property owner John Pulling indicated later in the meeting that the density based on his contract cannot be increased (laying this issue to rest). The density of Manchester Square at ±3.6 D.U's per acre is comparable to 3.99 D.U's per acre proposed for the subject property. 2. Height Concerns from residents. Kevin indicated that the three products types would be one or two story; but, the duplexes would likely remain one story. Height would be ±35 feet or 40 feet maximum to the top of the roof. Flexibility is needed according to Kevin to sell either a (1) one or (2) two story product, the same as allowed in Manchester Square. 3. What will be composition of property owners of neighborhood resident? Kevin indicated that the community would not be an adult only (55+) restricted community, and that sales in GL's Riverstone community and Marbella Lakes have been approximately 60% families and 40% retirees. Retirees prefer the duplex units. (Composition subject to market conditions.) 2 4. What are the sales prices of the units? Kevin, average sales pricing of duplexes expected to be ±$300,000 to $350,000 after inclusion of home amenities/upgrades and lot premium. Zero Lot size homes, average sales pricing expected to be $400,000 to $450,000 after inclusion of home amenities/upgrades and lot premium. Single-family homes, average sales pricing expected to be $500,000 to $550,000 after inclusion of home amenities/upgrades and lot premium. 5. How many units in each product type neighborhood asked by residents? Duplexes ±200 D.U's; single family ±161 D.U's; Zero lot line + 106 D.U's. The number of type of units contemplated at this time is subject to change and market conditions, but will not exceed 512. 6. Will affordable housing be provided on or off site? Kevin...No. This has not come up. Fred Reischl...This is not a policy the B.C.0 is presently imposing on projects. That policy has not been imposed for several years. 7. What are the sizes of the units? (a neighborhood resident) Kevin...smallest duplex 1,754 s.f. under air; 2,503 in total. Largest duplex 2,066 s.f. under air; 2,836 s.f. in total. Several product types are in between the smallest and the largest. Utilizing the Zero lot line product at Riverstone, homes from 1,853 s.f. under air; 2,557 s.f. in total to the largest at 3,359 s.f. under air; 4,054 s.f. in total; Utilizing the single family homes product in Riverstone, homes from 2,081 sf under air; 2,869 total s.f. to the largest at 4,113 s.f. under air; 5,022 s.f. in total. Kevin reiterated that the product sizing for Temple Citrus is still being prepared, but that Riverstone and Marbella were comparable projects. 8. Why is the buffer width 10 feet adjacent to Walden Oaks and not 15 feet? (Walden Oaks resident) Kevin...The narrow length of property South of Walden Oaks resulting in the lots South of Walden Oaks needing the additional lot depth to be marketable. The same number of plantings will be contained in the 10 feet wide buffer with a wall that will result in a negligible impact on Lone Oaks. 9. Noise from the recreation area by a Walden Oaks resident on the property. Kevin. In Riverstone, the basketball court is contained inside the Club House. If Walden Oaks desires additional landscaping behind the recreation area this will be considered. 3 10. Are sidewalks going to be contained in the project? (A Walden Oaks resident asked). Kevin answered it "Yes!" on both sides of the spine road and within the single-family area; on most 40 feet wide right-of-ways; and single loaded streets with lots on one side of the street sidewalk only on one side. The sidewalk adjacent to the Airport Pulling entry road is located on the south side of the roadway. (See Attached Sidewalk Plan. Exhibit C-4). 11. Traffic concerns by residents to exit onto Airport Pulling road. Also, traffic has increased by 20% in the recent past...resident said according to the County. Kevin ...discussed county concurrency requirements that do not allow the issuance or permitting of a development order until site plan or subdivision plat approval, after the approval of zoning, and then only if the roads are operating at an acceptable level of service. Ted Treesh...Noted that traffic was evaluated through 2019 and that the project road impacts could be accommodated by the proposed project. After 2019 it is the responsibility of the county to maintain the capacity and safe operation of the road system. Ted also reviewed trip generation and traffic distribution with neighborhood residents and how peak hour traffic volumes were considered. 12. What is the access from Livingston Road? (asked a resident) Kevin...No left hand turn lane can be provided due to the spacing of access points to the North and to the South of the project. Traffic signals likely not mandated at the present time on Livingston Road. 13. Preserve area requirements (asked a resident). Kevin and Fred Reischl...No preserve area required because there are not native trees. 14. Airport Pulling Road frontage not included in the application. What is the future use? (From several residents) Kevin...an amendment to the Growth Management Plan will be required to change the use of this ±5 acre property prior to rezoning approval. GL Homes typically would find and end user, before requesting such change in use. When asked, Fred Reischl said, "Future use could be determined by the B.C.0". However, with residential to the south and office to the north he opined that lower intensity commercial uses might be considered, such as, C-1 with C-5 being the most intensive. 4 15. Duplex units converted to carriage homes concern expressed by the residents. Kevin...Duplexes likely to remain and not converted to carriage homes, but could be. 16. Increase buffer area may be desirable on the South side of the project on Livingston Road Entrance (Resident of Manchester Square to reduce lightning impacts). Kevin...indicated he thought the landscaping and wall would be adequate. He also noted more landscaping in some cases might cause more problems with maintenance at a later date. GL Homes indicated they would consider additional landscaping at this location, but not guarantee it. Kevin suggested to the residents to visit other G.L. Home Communities to evaluate the quality of their landscaping that is a high priority in their communities. Kevin also indicated that he was willing to sit down with community representatives to discuss any issues they have and that he has already been corresponding with the Vice President of the Manchester Square HOA, David Crouch. 17. Pedestrian or vehicular access to the school board property to the South. Kevin... indicated that vehicular access was problematic to the property from the South Pedestrian access will be considered and will be the subject of a meeting with the School Board on Sep. 4t', 2013 at 9:00 am. 18. How will the other side of the wall adjacent to GL Homes be maintained? Kevin...Access will be maintained by gaps in the wall to provide easy access to the other side of the wall. Kevin concluded the meeting that he would be happy to meet with a small group of residents to consider any other constructive suggestions they may have and gave residents his personal contact information and his home phone number too. The meeting was concluded at 6:40 pm. Robert L. Duane, AICP 5 Robert Associates Land Planning ST Zoning Consultants A.I.C.P. 4880 Tamarind Ridge Dr.Naples FL 34119 Office(239)33.4167 cells(239) 9 -50961682-1339 robe rtrosatba.duanetr%y ahoo.co►n NIM (2" Meeting) Temple Citrus Grove RPUD Minutes Nov. 05, 2013 The second NIM meeting for the Temple Citrus Grove meeting began at 5:30 pm and was attended by 22 residents, at the Naples Italian American Club. The first meeting was held on Aug.15`f', 2013. Kevin Ratterree was the principal presenter, Vice-President for G.L. Homes. Also, in attendance Robert Duane of Robert L. Duane & Associates, Ted Treesh from TR Transportation and Bruce Anderson Esq. from Roetzel & Andress, LPA. Fred Reischl, AICP was the county planner in attendance. Kevin's presentation was generally the same that the first NIM meeting. See also attached notes for this meeting. Kevin noted this meeting was required because 5 additional acres are now included in the RPUD along Airport Pulling Road, however, the density will not increase. The Airport Road portion of the RPUD will include landscaping, a wall, and a lake. Kevin advised the residents of the general parameters of the proposed RPUD request (512) dwelling units including access and buffering requirements for the project. Timing of the project will likely commence next spring and three years are anticipated for build out. Multi-family uses are no longer proposed in the RPUD. The three housing types proposed are duplex, zero lot line, and single-family units. Kevin discussed the price points, product types, and the general location of each product type. The general location of each housing type proposed is set forth in an Exhibit attached to the first meeting notes. Kevin indicated the Main Entrance from Livingston Road would have a man gatehouse. Access from Airport Pulling Road will not include a gatehouse but will be gated for resident only access. Access will be achieved by residents via an electronic card reader or electronic scan system. There will not be a call in box at this location. A resident had questions on the layout of the recreation area from the Lone Oak PUD. Kevin will e-mail plan to this resident the plan for the recreation area, and he welcomed his input, as well as the one coming from other residents of Lone Oak. Another resident of Lone Oaks had questions about the landscape treatment of the proposed wall adjacent to Lone Oak. Kevin indicated that G.L. Homes would provide the shrubs on the Lone Oak side of the wall. A commitment is now Robert L. Duane & Associates Land Planning& Zoning Consultants A.1.C.P. 4880 Tamarind Ridge Dr.Naples FL, 34119 Office(239)353-4167 cells(239)595-5096/682-1339 robertrosalba.duanevahoo.com contained in the RPUD Development Commitments Exhibit "F", to this effect, based on this input. Kevin concluded the meeting and gave residents his personal contact information and his home phone number to attendees should they need to contact him. He noted that public hearings for the rezoning application that should be scheduled over the next several weeks. . The meeting was formally adjourned at 6:00 pm. However, several residents stayed after meeting for questions. Robert L. Duane , AICP/Planning Director